Sometimes it seems there is a disconnect between what American Jews believe is moral for Israel, and what they believe is moral for the U.S. 

 YNET reports:

"Infiltrators cause cultural, social and economic damage, and pull us towards the Third World," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at a Manufacturers Association assembly.
 "We suffer from a problem that actually stems from Israel's economic success," he said, explaining the problems that arise from the breached border with Egypt.
 "We have become almost the only First World country that can be reached by foot from the Third World. We are flooded with surge of refugees who threaten to wash away our achievements and damage our existence as a Jewish democratic state."

VDARE's Patrick Cleburne is calling the Jews out on their duplicity. Cleburne appears to be implying that Israel and her prime minister have one set of standard for illegal immigrants, and that American Jewry has quite another.

Now, American Jews do appear to be more in line with Netanyahu for American immigration policy than our leadership would like. Much more in line. But regardless of that, the organizational community, which invokes a theological mandate to "welcome the stranger," needs to explain to us why there is a different immigration policy promoted for the U.S. than for Israel. Especially since so many in our community already appear to conflate American policy for Israeli policy in so many ways already. 

 If we are to be consistent, American Jewry should pressure Israel to accept "a path to citizenship" for "strangers," against her majority population's will, just as Jewish groups are pressuring the U.S. to accept mass immigration against our majority population's will.

By Jewish communal standards, Netanyahu should be denounced for his unfortunate xenephobic, racist, and nativist standards. He should be denounced for his (non-existent) relationship with John Tanton.

Alternatively, Jewish organizations could revisit a HIAS-determined policy that is out of synch with out countrymen, with Israel, and even with American Jewry.

I have long railed against the Orthodox Union and its double-headed outreach group, NCSY and the JSU, for funneling public school teens to haredi places whose trajectories, if followed properly, will lead the indoctrinated to poverty.

The problem is that the Orthodox, even the Modern Orthodox, do not see that as a problem. 

From their P.O.V., they may be correct. 

In regards to a new national survey, the OU declared,

Baalei teshuva, those who do not grow up religiously observant but become so later in life, face added challenges in their marriages; more affluent families run a greater risk of marital stress from at-risk or “off-the-derech” children than Orthodox Jews of more modest means

The Orthodox Union will not relinquish recruiting ties to haredi insitutions that preach poverty to our youth (but not to their own) precisely in part because affluence itself is rightly seen by the Orthodox Union and by Big Kiruv generally as enhancing an already "at risk" population: the newly Orthodox.

Like many of you, I suppose, I fear situations that may require emergency services. None of us want to be in that position where there is a personal emergency and we are forced to look into the abyss and face that terrible question as the rescue team approaches. The question of, “Will this emergency team be diverse enough?”

Thankfully, Leroy Comrie, the Deputy Majority Leader of the NYC Council, is doing what he can to ease fears in those situations.

From Comrie’s press release:

New York City Council Deputy Majority Leader Leroy Comrie (D-Queens) hosted a City Hall press conference yesterday to respectfully urge his colleagues to pass legislation he has introduced which would allow any candidate for the position of New York City Firefighter, who possesses a high school diploma (or its educational equivalent) from a New York City High School, to become eligible for an additional eight point credit on the open competitive firefighter exam.

He was joined by several of his Council colleagues, as well as members of the members of the FDNY's fraternal organizations of color, the Vulcan Society and the Hispanic Society, and representatives of the Local 375/Civil Service Technical Guild and the Grand Council of Hispanic Societies in Public Service.

“Today I am urging my colleagues to pass legislation that will allow any candidate for firefighter that possesses a high school diploma (or its educational equivalent) from a New York City high school to become eligible for an additional eight point credit on the open competitive firefighter exam,” stated Council Member Comrie. “Although the population of New York City includes more than 65% minorities, the racial composition of the FDNY is made up of only 11% minorities, thus making the FDNY the least diverse fire department of any major city in the United States.

This is wonderful news. Although there are some spurious claims of a need for years and years of specific and sometimes quite difficult and complicated training to become truly superior firepersons, other more reasonable voices such as Comrie believe that any high school grad can reasonably pickup a hose and point it at the fire, and as someone not trained in these matters, I say we just go according to the latter opinion, since it promotes diversity.And nothing is more important than that.

In a city as widely diverse as ours, this trend is unacceptable and we must do all we can to ensure that our most noble institutions reflect our great city.

Damned straight! After all, if you had a fire, wouldn’t you want the most diverse team possible? And they are all high school grads, right? And once the fire department is more diverse thanks to a lowering of standards, we can then demand that the leadership of the fire department reflect that diversity, and lower standards for promotion.

It’s just life and death, people. And diversity must come first.

Where is the communal Jewish outrage?

The JTA reports that Elie Wiesel spoke last week,

 … at a "Jewish Hungarian Solidarity Symposium" of Hungarian political and Jewish leaders held at Parliament.
[…]
He added, "I ask you, why don't you follow the example of France and Germany and declare Holocaust denial not only indecent but illegal? In those countries, Holocaust deniers go to jail.

While I do not seek to jail Wiesel for what he said, I would note that this policy is (or at least, should be considered) contrary to the American Jewish community's position. There are many reasons why jailing Holocaust deniers is a very bad idea. For instance, it breeds conspiracy theory, inviting less unreasonable people to question why there is such a peculiar and specific law.

But it is also morally wrong to do so, if you happen to believe in free speech.

Novelists should anyway not be elevated to the status of political leaders. They usually are not. This was a form of affirmative action. Wiesel is not a political leader because of what he did, but rather, because of his flair for detailing what was done to him.

But his ways are not our ways. And still he is allowed to speak for us.

As many of you probably know, the Jewish community has mostly come out against the minaret ban in Switzerland. And as someone who isn’t a descendant of Holocaust survivors, I feel obligated to also speak out against what is happening to Islamicist religious freedoms.

Banning minarets today is a slippery slope to banning other expressions of religious fundamentalism tomorrow, and part of a wider, disturbing pattern of oppression of Jihadists. For instance, France’s ban on burkas was an infringement on the very personal choice of women, their spiritual guides, and the watchful militants patrolling neighborhood streets.

Regardless if the efforts of Switzerland and France are efficacious or not, the most important thing about challenging Islamicist aims is not to generalize, and to accuse everyone who attempts to change the trajectory the West is currently on as doing just that.

As David Harris of the AJC noted,

"While there are certainly understandable concerns in Europe over Islamist extremism, these cannot be legitimately addressed through a blanket assault on Muslim communities and their religious symbols," he added.

Indeed not, and we should remember that Islamicism is an important, fast growing segment of the West’s Muslim population. You say “appeasement,” I say, “It’s not everyone.”

And who is better to dictate the direction Islam will take than the Christians, or even better, the Jews? No one likes taking spiritual directives from the Christians and especially the Jews more than the Muslims do.

As French Ambassador Christophe Bigot noted,

"What is important in Europe is to work for moderate Islam, for an Islam that is based on education, openness and freedom.”

Exactly! Finally, a sure-fire, tactical, detailed plan, instead of all that "ban this, ban that, let's stop importing people who don't want our way of life" stuff. And if we haven’t yet achieved it by repeatedly trying the same failed approach as we have incessantly babbled about for years already, we can at least insist on trying the same failed approach in the future. After all, it delays indefinitely having to make some tough policy decisions.

Continue reading...