Jewish Double Standards on Immigration and Multiculturalism in Israel vs. the Diaspora

The Misplaced Minister: Ireland and Israel’s Alan Shatter

For the past two years Ireland’s immigration policy has been in the hands of Alan Shatter, a Jew and an outspoken partisan of Israel. Alan Shatter, born and bred in Dublin of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, has made it Irish policy to increase Third World immigration to the Emerald Isle. As Minister of Justice, Equality, and Defence, Shatter is exerting his considerable clout to skew the Republic’s Middle East policy, formerly supportive of the Palestinians and critical of Israel, toward Zionist aims. 

Before Shatter, the Irish government had taken steps to reduce non-European immigration, including abolishing automatic citizenship for children born to foreigners in Ireland and drastically reducing the admission of asylum seekers. Since taking office in early 2011, after his Fine Gael party ousted the ruling Fianna Fail amid Ireland’s continuing economic woes, Shatter has busied himself with increasing the numbers of Africans and Asians resident in Ireland.

Immigration to Ireland from outside Europe during 2011 was twice that of the previous year. Last year, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service granted visas to 91 percent of the 88,000 non-Europeans who applied for them (citizens of the twenty-six other member states of the European Union can travel to Ireland without having to obtain a visa). An additional 115,000 migrants from outside Europe were given permission to remain in Ireland in 2012, with India, China, Nigeria, Turkey, and the Philippines among the top six countries of origin. To be sure, the number of permits to non-Europeans to reside in Ireland has declined over the previous two years—but only because Shatter’s ministry has been granting them citizenship, at several times the rate of the preceding years. Read more

Jonah Goldberg and Harold Meyerson on the election: It’s all good

Two op-eds in the LATimes illustrate two Jewish reactions to the election. Although they supposedly are on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, they have much in common.

On one hand is Jonah Goldberg, editor of National ReviewOnline. Goldberg is a neocon—a faux conservative who recently was noted as supporting the firing of John Derbyshire for telling the truth about race. Goldberg has also attacked Peter Brimelow for what he described as “the narrow and nasty emphasis on what … Brimelow calls America’s ‘specific ethnic core'” (“Peter Brimelow (“a once-respected conservative voice”) on Goldberg of National Review (a once-conservative, now respected, magazine“). Brimelow’s main point is that Goldberg has been an enthusiastic supporter of displacement-level non-White immigration and is horrified at the thought of an identity politics for White people (for other groups, it’s just fine).

So it’s not surprising that Goldberg is not particularly upset by the election (“The right isn’t waving a white flag“). Goldberg claims that conservatism will come back, as it has before. Not one mention of the demographics of the vote or what that portends for the GOP or what the GOP ought to do about it. Read more

The Man Who Kissed the Pope’s Ring

In the spring of 2011, while living in Rome, I met the Israeli Ambassador to the Vatican. I was attending a speech he was giving in a Franciscan monastery overlooking the ruins of the ancient Forum. Earlier in the day, he had given a similar speech before Pope Benedict XVI and his advisors. Then, that evening, he appeared before a group of about one hundred Catholic guests and clerical members of the Franciscans, an Order historically associated with the Spanish Inquisition. Ambassador Mordachay Lewy was presenting his government’s position on creating peace in the Middle East, which would come through its plan for a two state solution. Although the final plan could not yet be made public, he promoted its inevitability with words backed by the full weight of Tel Aviv, a world power more formidable than the Vatican, even if not defended by its vaunted Swiss Guards. Everyone, he said, in the Israeli and Palestinian governments interested in peace had come to understand that there was no other alternative than to have two separate states – one for the Jews and one for the Palestinians.

In order to bring this about, he said, there were many political obstacles to overcome. But, first it was necessary to distinguish between the possible and the impossible. Everyone must realize that the ideas of “peace” and of “justice” are two separate ideals. The Ambassador invoked various philosophical arguments to support his and his government’s belief that the two words must be considered in two different ways and in two separate spheres. Peace, he said, is for humans and was meant for this world. Justice, he said, is God’s alone and meant only for the next. Behind his presentation, for those aware of the Palestinian side of the equation, were the unspoken and regularly smothered words – “Right of Return.” Read more

Jewish hypocrisy on ethnonationalism in Israel versus the Diaspora: A picture is worth a thousand words

Menachem Rosensaft is a Jewish anti-White columnist with access to the mainstream media. At TOO we have often noted the hypocrisy of Jews who are strong advocates for Israel as an ethnostate but oppose any manifestation of ethnonationalism by Whites. (At this time, there are 36 articles listed under the category of “Jewish attitudes on Israel versus the Diaspora.”) A recent comment by “Tom” on yet another article on the topic had the following image. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Israeli anti-immigrant riots: Ignored by the organized Jewish community and the mainstream Western media

Haaretz caption: Israelis protest against African migrant workers in South Tel Aviv

Peter Beinart has become a thorn in the side of the organized Jewish community, this time pointing out  that the same Jewish organizations  (the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, AIPAC, and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations) that are quick to condemn anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe and the US have not mentioned the recent riots in Tel Aviv in which Jews attacked African immigrants. This video captures some of the  intense passions aroused in this situation.


This is yet another example of moral particularism by the Jewish community. While forever taking advantage of the Western tendencies to moral universalism, Jewish organizations simply pursue what’s best for Jews. There’s a strong conceptual link between this behavior and the behavior noted in Andrew Joyce’s excellent series on the 19th-century Russian “pogroms” where Jewish organizations actively engaged in deception on the form and scale of anti-Jewish behavior.

Read more

Joe Walsh and the 9/11 cover-up: Jewish power on display

Congressman Joe Walsh has a sure-fire way to end the Palestinian/Israeli conflict: Palestinians move to Jordan, and those who don’t move reconcile themselves to permanent second-class status. As Robert Wright notes,

 Offhand, I don’t recall a member of Congress in my lifetime saying anything so grotesquely at odds with American ideals about ethnic relations and for that matter basic human rights. Will the Anti-Defamation League denounce Walsh? Will the American Jewish Committee? Will AIPAC have anything to say about the congressman whose strongly pro-Israel views its newsletter approvingly highlighted? If not, why not? (“Congressman endorses ethnic cleansing, apartheid for Palestinians“; The Atlantic)

Walsh’s proposal contravenes the entire zeitgeist of Jewish intellectual and political activism in the West. It dovetails nicely with Newt Gingrich’s statement during the Republican primaries that the Palestinians already have a state: Jordan. Except that Gingrich apparently would like the Palestinians to be expelled.

The mere fact that Walsh could propose such a thing is a telling sign of Jewish power. There is no other group in the entire world whose permanent subordination could be advocated by a US politician.

But there will be no outrage by Jewish activist organizations, even though they are a major support for utopian multiculturalism in the US and even though they routinely act as arbiter on statements related to Israel by US politicians. The Jabotinskyists are in charge in Israel, and, given Israeli demographic trends favoring the religious and secular ethnonationalists, there is no going back. The Israel Lobby will support whatever Israel does. Read more

Peter Beinart on American Jews and Israel

I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, but I was. Peter Beinart, who has become a leading voice of the liberal critique of Israel, had this to say in describing Jews who support AIPAC:

There is nothing wrong with the people themselves. Most AIPAC people are not ideological. They don’t see themselves as right wing. They’re mostly moderate Democrats. They just want to do something for Israel. They want to feel connected to Israel. They go to their synagogue dinner, they go to the Federation dinner, and they go to the AIPAC dinner. (Haaretz, Is archliberal Peter Beinart good for the Jews?“)

A recurrent theme at TOO is that Diaspora Jews are engaged in hypocrisy—supporting apartheid Israel bent on ethnic cleansing and oppression of Palestinians, with a Jews-only immigration policy, while supporting America as  a proposition nation with no ethnic identity, massive non-White immigration, and vilifying any manifestations of ethnic/racial identity by Whites. My image of AIPAC supporters was that they are conscious gung-ho supporters of settlers, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid—the technical term is ‘neocon’. But Beinart seems  to be saying that American Jews simply have a blind spot. The hypocrisy fails to register with them. They are good liberals who will vote for Obama and just want to support Israel; they don’t pay much attention to what Israel does, or their attitudes are shaped by the AIPAC propaganda machine. In a rather gentle way, Beinart is trying to get them to see their hypocrisy, probably to no avail. Read more