French Jews Planning Mass Exodus in Wake of Terrorist Attacks

[ag]

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

Then, please share the stats with us.

[H. Ross Peron]

Living in Israel as a Jew is probably safer than living in many parts of Europe. One of my good friends who moved from Sweden to Israel certainly thinks so.

Being a Jew in the US (as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and ironically enough possibly Germany) is much safer than either option

[SNJ1985]

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?

Violent crime committed by native Europeans against Muslim immigrants is not actually that common; and I doubt that it is significantly more common than the reverse, if not less common.

For example, many (namely the BBC) sounded the alarm about a ''wave of Islamophobic attacks'' following the killing of Lee Rigby in London back in 2013; yet it turned out that the majority of the ''attacks'' recorded in the statistic used to justify the narrative actually consisted of mean comments posted on the Internet, not violence. On top of that, not all of the incidents recorded were even verified yet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html

If anyone has some hard statistics on how common violent crime committed by native Europeans against Muslim immigrants is and vice versa, I'd be interested in seeing them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

Then, please share the stats with us.

Well there have certainly been less murders, but if you mean in a more general sense...

To start with, there's a useful report here. Which, again, makes it clear that this isn't a contest and that things are unpleasant for both groups (and for the Roma, who have the additional problem of state-sponsored discrimination). I would point out again my earlier use of 'present': it isn't impossible that the situation regarding anti-Muslim attacks could get significantly worse (certainly the political climate in France is alarming in that regard).

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 I've had to look around for something in English: anyway, 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.

Depressing fycking topic this one.

_{*Story of my life.}

[Filuwaúrdjan]

native Europeans

Kindly fyck yourself with a rusty razorblade.

[SNJ1985]

native Europeans

Kindly fyck yourself with a rusty razorblade.

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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[SNJ1985]

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.

[Famous Mortimer]

NJ Christian dude says crazy things all the time. That's probably one of the less offensive things he's ever said.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The concept of a "European" identity is rather new.

[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

[MalaspinaGold]

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?

[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.

[politicus]

native Europeans

Kindly fyck yourself with a rusty razorblade.

Sigh.

European used to have two meanings: an inhabitant of Europe/a white person (Europide in pre-WW2 Danish racial terminology). Then it became non-PC to use the second, but the social reality behind it didn't disappear.

Europe does have a native or aboriginal population (it is mixed with people from neighbouring regions, but so is the native population of Africa and Asia). Since a lot of people are offended by using European as a racial description (even if Asian and African are used as such - despite Asians being far more diverse than Europeans) you need to look for an alternative. How would you describe white culturally Christian/historically Christian people descended from the population living in Europe pre-1950? Native is not as accurate as aboriginal, but the latter sounds odd and is too connected to Australian aborigines.

It is frustrating when an obvious reality (the existence of a white pre-mass immigration population in Europe) can not be described and all labels are just considered "racist". It is no use pretending there is no us and them if the vast majority of people consider there to be one. White works in areas to which Europeans emigrated, but is odd in Europe itself. It feels odd saying White European, like it is odd for a Sub-Saharan African to describe himself as a  Black African (unless used to contradict with North African) and weird for a Korean saying he is a Yellow or Brown Asian.

@ag: Your "tribe" is along with Romas one of the two historical outsider minorities in Europe. Far better integrated (and often fully assimilated) than Romas, of course. Askenazi Jews descended from people being in Europe for centuries are native Europeans since they are white and mostly assimilated. At some point large parts of present immigrants will of course be as well. Recently immigrated Sephardic Jews from North Africa are not native Europeans. In pre-Holocaust Europe categorization of Jews does not really matter in most contexts. France with its large partly Sephardic Jewish community is an exception.

To those that think terms like Native European are offensive, what is your non-derogatory/non-slur ("Aryan") alternative? Should it just be forbidden to refer to the majority population in Europe by any common label? (then you need to use a lot of stupid coded language, since it is a social reality)

I hope Americans understands why using white is odd in a European context.

Also, there are adopted children, people with mixed-race origin etc. and all sorts of exceptions. But just as national identies that were originally also ethnic labels (like Norwegian) can today both apply to the ethnic majority group and the whole population in the country (depending on context) it should be possible to use European in both ways - Native European would be a helpful qualifier.

[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.

[politicus]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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

Untrue.  Back in the day, the Irish and Italians (and, yes, Jews) were considered "not white" despite looking white, but as they assimilated they took on the mantle and privileges of whiteness.  A similar process is happening even today with Hispanics.  And of course if you're going by racial categorizations and appearance, Iranians are just as Caucasian as Europeans, but do they get to be "white" in America or Europe?

I mean, it's true that you don't necessarily get to choose it yourself– more like it gets chosen for you– but to say that it's a simple matter of appearance is simplistic, ahistorical rot.

[Foucaulf]

Where was the "social reality" behind this idea of an European people when the Europeans slaughtered each other by the millions throughout a millenium and a half?

I only know of two historical situations where the idea of an European identity was entertained: as an excuse for imperialism during the 19th Century and as an attempt to counter the U.S. and Soviet hegemons in the late 20th Century. If anyone can find anything else, post it and I'll take a look.

I don't think it's bizarre to say things like "white European," nor is it much of a leap to say "British-European," "German-European" or "Polish-European" in the future. The only future Europe has is as a plural society. The U.S. has created this whole set of terminology to pretend it's a plural society, so borrowing them would make life simple.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

France being France and so refusing to handle this sort of thing in a normal way, the SPCJ figures more or less are official ones (the figures are produced in cooperation with the police). On your latter point, an organisation called the CCIF does in fact put together annual reports on anti-Muslim incidents (the vast majority of which are cases of blatant discrimination* rather than violence or intimidation, so the headline figures aren't directly comparable) in France.

*Edit: and I think it's a very good thing that they are attempting to record instances of this.