French Jews Planning Mass Exodus in Wake of Terrorist Attacks

[ag]

Moving from France to Israel because of a terrorist attack is like moving from the US to Mexico because of criminal violence.

And I am sure, there are some who do that as well. Human behavior is a misterious thing.

[ag]

Things should be put into right perspective.

France has the third largest Jewish community anywhere in the world: only in Israel and in the US it is larger. Seven thousand is, what, 1% of French Jewish population? Most likely, more Jews have been born in france than left last year. Even if 70 thousand leave (something that I have hard time envisioning), France will still have the third largest Jewish community in the world. Of course, in a community this large there will be people who tend to exaggerate. And, of course, Israeli government will do its best to exploit that for the purposes of fomenting Jewish emigration. I am pretty certain, though, that in 20 years France will still have the third largest Jewish community in the world, and vast majority of its members will continue being comfortable in France.

[ag]

While I doubt the long term viability of the Zionist state, I don't see Israel collapsing anytime this century.

By that definition, couldn't you doubt the 'viability' of any state? I doubt the US will still be here in the year 4000.

The US is unlikely to collapse in a manner that causes its inhabitants to flee for somewhere else.  The State of Israel is likely to so collapse.  Israel has chosen to base its existence upon the proposition that it will always be militarily superior to its neighbors.  That is true now, but it will not always be true.

You are making pretty damn confident predictions for the year 4000 2000 years ago few people would have predicted a collapse of the Roman Empire

[ag]

Most of these people will end up moving back to France or moving to America 10 years from now when the Israeli state ends up collapsing.

If that happens, chances are that most of these people are dead in 10 years. I hope, you realize that, when you dream of Israeli collapse.

[ag]

While I doubt the long term viability of the Zionist state, I don't see Israel collapsing anytime this century.

Please get one thing: this is no longer about a "Zionist state". You could argue a 100 years back, whether gathering Jews in Palestine was a good idea (frankly, I do not think it was). But 100 years is a long time. Over the last 100 years a community of millions of people with no other home has been created. This is not the hypothetical colonization project of old - it is a midsized nation. Now, I do not like the Zionist presumption to speak for the entire "Jewish people". I, for one, have nothing to do with this idea - or this state. But, whatever happens, these people are in the Middle East to stay. They are not going anywhere - because they have no other homeland. In that respect, they are like the Afrikaners of South Africa - but they are much more concentrated on a much smaller piece of land, in which they are a clear majority.

True, it is not impossible that, eventually, an integrated state emerges there (like it has in South Africa - an outcome I, personally, would find quite appropriate). Or else some sort of a partition will be implemented. But, unless a major catastrophe happens, any future of Israel-Palestine will involve a large Jewish community that will be a crucial part of whatever state(s) there is (are). This no longer requires any "Zionist" idea: just a lack of a massive ethnic cleansing. This is something to keep in mind when talking of "validity" or whatever of Israel: it is as "valid" as the lives of those people currently inhabiting it. So, I would avoid using such language,  less others make an obvious conclusion of what you mean.

[ag]

If that's what they feel needs to be done, then good. I have given up any hope of Europe's capability (or in some cases, desire) to protect their shrinking Jewish minority. Whether the next step is emigration to Israel or a less-hostile Western nation, I can only hope they find the peace and security that various elements are determined to deny them in Europe.

Europe is not a country.

France has the largest Jewish population and the most recent tragedy, but the harassment, intimidation, and terrorizing of Jews is a continent-wide problem right now.

Though not nearly as serious as harassment, intimidation, and terrorizing of, say, Muslims.

[ag]

If that's what they feel needs to be done, then good. I have given up any hope of Europe's capability (or in some cases, desire) to protect their shrinking Jewish minority. Whether the next step is emigration to Israel or a less-hostile Western nation, I can only hope they find the peace and security that various elements are determined to deny them in Europe.

Europe is not a country.

France has the largest Jewish population and the most recent tragedy, but the harassment, intimidation, and terrorizing of Jews is a continent-wide problem right now.

Though not nearly as serious as harassment, intimidation, and terrorizing of, say, Muslims.

I disagree, unless you mean something internal in their community.

Have you tried being Muslim in Europe?

[ag]

It's far more dangerous to be Muslim in France than Jewish in France.

History in the last ten years would prove otherwise.

Especially, if you do not care about Muslims in France.

[ag]

Firstly, it is not a contest. Secondly, that's statistically untrue at present.

Then, please share the stats with us.

[ag]

native Europeans

Kindly fyck yourself with a rusty razorblade.

OK, is ''the historical majority population of the continent'' better?

Just say, "Aryans", and we all will understand

[ag]

To start with, there's a useful report here.
_{*Story of my life.}

Very useful indeed. Only I do not see how it is supporting your point.

"According to French police statistics, <...> in 2009, Muslim people were the authors of only 20 out of 172 anti-Semitic attacks, while 14 attacks were perpetrated by Neo-Nazis."

"The overwhelming majority of anti-Semitic incidents are graffiti, the authors of
which remain unknown"

"Incidents that target Muslims and which can be labelled as a consequence of
Islamophobia are on the rise and consist of three categories: desecrations; daubing
on mosques and violent attacks on individuals."

"The report states that „members of the community from the Maghreb‟
are the main victims: they were the target of 33.64% of racist violent acts and of
29.77% of racist threats. "

"On May 28, 2008 in the city of Saint-Michel sur Orge, a suburb located south of
Paris, three men went on a shooting spree, using automatic weapons. They shot
35 bullets in one of the main streets, targeting black persons and Arab passers-by,
but miraculously wounded no one. "

Besides everything else, it seems to me that we also have a very obvious case of selection bias: since Jews feel protected by the society, my fellow-tribesmen report every single graffiti incident. Whereas we tend to get only reports of violent crime or serious desecration from the less favored communities.

[ag]

The entire continent of Europe has a single 'historical majority population'? Since when?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that all majority populations in Europe were exactly the same. They all have different cultures and identities, obviously. What I'm trying to get at is the ''Western'' population as opposed to the ''non-Western'' population. For example, it is clear that a Frenchman has more in common with a German than either do with a Moroccan.

And an Andalusian has more in common with the Finn than the Greek with the Turk ... Sorry, wrong page.

BTW, where, exactly, do my fellow-tribesmen fit in here?

[ag]

recent official figures are on page 31 of this report. Admittedly there are a bunch of problems with official (or official-ish, Franch being France) figures for this sort of thing, but the general picture is clear enough.

_{*Story of my life.}

Well, I do not see official figures: I could find only the reference to an unnamed source in the interior ministry. Especially, given that France does not collect data officially by race or religion. I also see a clear  figure of 0 homicides or attempted homicides for the entire year of 2014 (compared with 1 in 2013). The other numbers, even if I am to trust the unnamed source, are naturally subject to reporting and classification bias. The study is presented by a Jewish group, which, naturally, concerns itself with anti-Semitic violence. I would, at least, like to see a similar study for a Muslim human rights group. Wouldn't you?

[ag]

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that official estimates have tended to show that an exceedingly disproportionate percentage of racist attacks in France have an antisemitic character. Its a bit late at night for me to trust my French (bunch of stuff here, probably, but I'd only know what to look for when not half asleep)*

So, on your French link I did find the more or less official stats (this is an official site, so that is true). Not for 2014 but for 2012 and 2013

In 2012 they counted 177 "anti-semitic actions". In 2013 they counted 105 (the number of threats during the same period going from 438 to 318).

The number of "racist actions" went from 118 to 97 (threats from 606 to 528)

The number of "anti-muslim actions" recorded went from 54 to 62 (threats from 149 to 164).

Frankly, the numbers reported are so low, I have hard time beleiving they reflect anything - even the anti-semitic violence. 105 anti-semitic actions in 2013 ammounts to barely 2 for every 10,000 French Jews (less, if we take the broader definition of who a Jew is). The report does not specify which proportion of anti-semitic actions is, in fact, violent, but even if this is a half or a bit more (for the Muslims it gives a high number of 60%, suggesting only violence gets recorded), this is about 1 violent anti-semitic act a year for every 10,000 Jews. Even I, fully believing that there is no real menace to Jewish population in France, would think of this number as ridiculously underreported. The numbers for Muslims and racial minorities simply look infinitecimal - this can only be explained by the fact that only a very small proportion of actions gets recorded and classfied appropriately.

To sum up, I am pretty convinced the data reflects, mostly, reporting - i.e., victim confidence in the sytem. You know, in Mexico City, where I live, every time they publish the lists of "highest crime" neighborhoods, the worst ones always turn out to be the most solidly sleepy middle-class areas: that is where people, if robbed, report to police. The most dangerous parts of town report very little crime: people there fear police more than they fear the robbers. That, of course, does not imply that there has never been a murder on my block - most definitely there has been, and I myself know of at least one pretty horrible case. But it is, most definitely, not the most dangerous part of town

[ag]

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that official estimates have tended to show that an exceedingly disproportionate percentage of racist attacks in France have an antisemitic character. Its a bit late at night for me to trust my French (bunch of stuff here, probably, but I'd only know what to look for when not half asleep)*

So, on your French link I did find the more or less official stats (this is an official site, so that is true). Not for 2014 but for 2012 and 2013

In 2012 they counted 177 "anti-semitic actions". In 2013 they counted 105 (the number of threats during the same period going from 438 to 318).

The number of "racist actions" went from 118 to 97 (threats from 606 to 528)

The number of "anti-muslim actions" recorded went from 54 to 62 (threats from 149 to 164).

Frankly, the numbers reported are so low, I have hard time beleiving they reflect anything - even the anti-semitic violence. 105 anti-semitic actions in 2013 ammounts to barely 2 for every 10,000 French Jews (less, if we take the broader definition of who a Jew is). The report does not specify which proportion of anti-semitic actions is, in fact, violent, but even if this is a half or a bit more (for the Muslims it gives a high number of 60%, suggesting only violence gets recorded), this is about 1 violent anti-semitic act a year for every 10,000 Jews. Even I, fully believing that there is no real menace to Jewish population in France, would think of this number as ridiculously underreported. The numbers for Muslims and racial minorities simply look infinitecimal - this can only be explained by the fact that only a very small proportion of actions gets recorded and classfied appropriately.

To sum up, I am pretty convinced the data reflects, mostly, reporting - i.e., victim confidence in the sytem. You know, in Mexico City, where I live, every time they publish the lists of "highest crime" neighborhoods, the worst ones always turn out to be the most solidly sleepy middle-class areas: that is where people, if robbed, report to police. The most dangerous parts of town report very little crime: people there fear police more than they fear the robbers. That, of course, does not imply that there has never been a murder on my block - most definitely there has been, and I myself know of at least one pretty horrible case. But it is, most definitely, not the most dangerous part of town

I have neither the time nor the inclination to look that much into this, but what do the per capita numbers look like?

For the Jews - 2 recorded incidents per 10,000 a year (not clear how many of them violent, probably about half). For the Muslims and racial minorities together - I guess, about a tenth of that. These are non-sensically tiny. Probability of being a victim of violent s crime in NYC is orders of magnitude higher.

[ag]

There are no words I hate more than "white Judeo-Christian". Kindly, please leave us alone.

Europeans spent centuries hating my ancestors for not being white European Christians. For a thousamd years, pogrom after a pogrom, massacre after a massacre Jews where hunted from one country to another, from one ghetto to another. Then, after doing a short job with 6 millions of those "white Judeo-Christians" they got all teary-eyed and decided to award us with "whiteness". I am not a "white man" and do not want to be one. Anyone designating me as such would be guilty of basest libel. Please allow me to stay with my black migrant  non- christoan brethren: I do not want any of your "whiteness".

[ag]

About "assimilated". The predominance of assimilated Jews in modern Europe is an artifact of the Holocaust and the holocausts. In the 1920s Europe was full of yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim. There were 3 mln in poland alone. And they were still charging synagogue fees in Dutch guilders in Belarus as recently as in the 1870s. Ever wondered, where they picked that habit?

The native language of the sephardim for centuries was a dialect of Spanish. The largest Sephardic city a century ago was Thessaloniki. Yeah, they aren't native Europeans, sure.

[ag]

There are no words I hate more than "white Judeo-Christian". Kindly, please leave us alone.

Europeans spent centuries hating my ancestors for not being white European Christians. For a thousamd years, pogrom after a pogrom, massacre after a massacre Jews where hunted from one country to another, from one ghetto to another. Then, after doing a short job with 6 millions of those "white Judeo-Christians" they got all teary-eyed and decided to award us with "whiteness". I am not a "white man" and do not want to be one. Anyone designating me as such would be guilty of basest libel. Please allow me to stay with my black migrant  non- christoan brethren: I do not want any of your "whiteness".

Whiteness is not something you choose. You are white if you look white.

I do not know what that means. In Russia, a Georgian is, unquestionably, black (they, actually, use the word "black"). And a Georgian does not look much different from an Italian or a Spaniard. Nor does a Moroccan or a Turk. Nor does a Jew.

You are white, if you think you are white - or if the society considers you white. Jews and Catholics (Irish included) were not really considered "white" in NY a 100 years ago.

[ag]

Ой, не шейте вы, евреи, ливреи,
Не ходить вам в камергерах, евреи!
Не горюйте вы зазря, не стенайте, —
Не сидеть вам ни в Синоде, ни в Сенате.

А сидеть вам в Соловках да в Бутырках,
И ходить вам без шнурков на ботинках,
И не делать по субботам леха́им,
А таскаться на допрос с вертуха́ем.

Если ж будешь торговать ты елеем,
Если станешь ты полезным евреем,
Называться разрешат Рос… сина́нтом
И украсят лапсерда́к аксельба́нтом.

Но и ставши в ремесле этом первым,
Всё равно тебе не быть камергером
И не выйти на еле́е в Орфе́и…
Так не шейте ж вы ливреи, евреи!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljiWrfZcjqU

[ag]

Very useful indeed. Only I do not see how it is supporting your point.

My main point is that there is not a contest. I tend to think that the French state has done a pretty lamentable job of protecting all of its more obvious minorities. Anyway...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately the report was less than clear on this point and so has deceived you a little; for the purposes of the report it was citing general racist incidents and antisemitic racist incidents were counted separately. Here is a very happy little graph from it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is always a risk with hate crime data, sure. But what's the alternative?

So, I guess, we can say that they suffer as the North Africans, not so much as Jews (there are more identified attacks by the white rightwingers, than by Muslims, in the same report).

[ag]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

Actually, according to the Basques you all are very recent migrants

More seriously, thanks for letting me know that Jews, truly, do not belong to Europe. Those damns semitic migrants, they should go back to the Middle East where they came from. At least, I guess, you are not going to advocate the extermination - this is now in bad taste, if applied to the Jews. Unfortunately, I am afraid other "non-natives" would not have that "taste" protection clause applicable.

I guess, the reason French Jews are going to Israel is that they met you.

[ag]

The Hungarian language may be a relative newcomer to Europe, but genetic the Hungarians are not significant different from their Slavic, Latin and Germanic neighbours. Of course it's not like North Africans are very distinct from Iberians, they have a little more subsaharan and Middle Eastern ancestory, but they mostly belong to the same original population group.

Actually, according to the Basques you all are very recent migrants

Seeing as Baltic Germanics, Sardinians and Dalmatians are the only ones who have significant amount of pre-agricultural Y chromosome left, those uppity outlanders can move back to Mahgreb.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're aware that the closest related group to Ashkenazi are north Italians not Palestinians. I'm not aware who the Sephardic Jews are closest related to, but I would be surprised if it was not the Iberians.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First of all I fail to see how saying that Hungarians are not some people completely alien from their Indo-European neighbours can be seen as as supporting extermination, unless you think it's wrong that people mix across  language borders, and conquers rarely eradicate the people they conquer.

In fact I find you obsession with blood purity very early 20th century and not in a good way. While I don't think you support some kind of apartheid system, I do find this obsession in bad taste. So I suggest that you join me in the 21st century, where people are free to marry people for love, even if they belong to different ethnic, religious or racial groups.

1. You realize that all your discussion here is 10% science and 90% romantic interpretation, don´t you?

2. The only person here obsessed with blood purity here are yourself. For me, that is a meaningless concept.  I am not the one talking about the "pre-agricultural Y chromosome". It is you who are about to start measuring skull shapes for "nativeness".  "Blood purity" is something I find inane even in a conversation about dogs.  

3. I am a migrant bastard, whose family barely has had time to adopt a language of one country before moving on (most of my great grandparents were not native Slavic speakers and my grandchildren, probably, will not be either). I am not even "pure" for the Jews - thanks to a Swiss great grandmother (a "French sweet shop girl from Odessa," as my grandma - her daughter - wrote in her memoirs). There is no place I belong to - or wish to belong to. The likes of you would love to hunt me down and put me into a right ghetto - do not bother, there is no right ghetto for me. I am an anglophone Mexican, born in Russia of parents who never thought themselves Russian. Hopefully, my daughters will be Spanish-speaking East Indians married to some Chinese or African guys, or whatever. Yeah, we are not "native" Europeans: we have only lived there for a 1000 years, rarely spending even 200 years in any given place. We should have settled and assimilated, no doubt. But your "native Europeans" continued killing us throughout, so we had to flee. My Wilno-born great grandma could bake all the Vienna-style pastries she learnt in her childhood home - she still was not a "native European". Of course, she wasn't: she did't even know what her native language was (she had changed three, probably, by the time she was 20). My Riga great-uncle was well-enough "assimilated" to fake a plausible Eastern Prussian German dialect - served him truly well, as he was escaping from the concentration camp, fleeing from those true "native Europeans", who came to occupy the city he had been born in.

Genug (that is Yiddish, not German in this case), enough. I am sick of that "native European" bullcrap. Let my people alone. Do not dare you call us "native Europeans", "Judeo-Christians" or whatever. I do not want to be associated with you in any way.

[ag]

There is no such thing as human "races".

No that's incorrect, while the genetic argument for the "three" races is very weak (as example Eurasians, North Africans and the people of Africans horn belong to the same genetic group, through not a biological race), the Sans in southern Africa is distinct enough that we would call them one race and everyone else another, if we only looked at genetics.

But the three "races" exist as a social-cultural construction, which is recognised by everybody but genetists and people who suffer from a bad case of ideological blindness.

And which of the three races would, say, Mexicans be? In a "socio-cultural" way?

[ag]

This is predictably not going well. Deconstruction is a futile and pointless approach when addressing something perceived as social reality by most people.

Why cant there be a common name for people of European ancestry when there are common descriptions of people of Asian, African and American origin? Why is Native European so bad, when you got Native American? Why is highly diverse Asian an acceptable racial term, when more homogeneous European is not?

There is a very simple answer to your question. "Native Americans" refers to a tiny marginalized minority in the US (and includes people who are only partially Native, who speak no native language). Same as "First Nations" in Canada, of course. In Mexico, on the other hand, "indigenous" lable refers to the marginalized 10% to 15% of the population that speaks native languages. Of course, there are another 70% of Mexicans who have a lot more "Native" blood in them than most US "Native Americans", but nobody would call them "indigenous". Because there is no need: they are the majority, the Mexicans. "Native" lable is ok, when it is used to protect the weak and the disenfranchized. When used by the dominant group it is intrinsically threatening to the rest.

[ag]

There is no such thing as human "races".

No that's incorrect, while the genetic argument for the "three" races is very weak (as example Eurasians, North Africans and the people of Africans horn belong to the same genetic group, through not a biological race), the Sans in southern Africa is distinct enough that we would call them one race and everyone else another, if we only looked at genetics.

But the three "races" exist as a social-cultural construction, which is recognised by everybody but genetists and people who suffer from a bad case of ideological blindness.

And which of the three races would, say, Mexicans be? In a "socio-cultural" way?

I wasn't aware Mexicans was a "race", would you care to enlighten me, please? I have always seen Mexico as a nation populated by a diverse people.

Mexico has had very little migration. Currently, about 10% of the population, or a bit more, are classified as "indigenous" - these are, basically, people who speak a native language other than Spanish (or, at least, have family members who do). For about half of them a native tongue is their primary language, while their command of Spanish is limited. About 70% of the population views itself as mestizo. This includes people with only slight native admixture - but also (in fact, probably, to a very large extent) people with very little, if any, European ancestry. The only reason they are "mestizos" is that they have no longer any link to any traditional society. Another 15% of the population are of European or Middle Eastern - mostly, Spanish, though there are sizeable numbers of the French, Syrians/Lebanese, Germans, etc. - origin. The remainder (under 5%) includes the few Mexicans with some African ancestry (these are, mostly, heavily mixed with the indigenous population) and even smaller numbers of (East) Asians. So, basically, well over 80% of Mexicans have at least some ancestors who were here before Columbus.

However, of course, there is a Mexican Race. There is a big monument in the middle of Mexico City to The Race (La Raza, there is even a subway station by that name). Of course, The Race of the national mythology is the Mestizo Race, the merger of different origins.