A couple of years ago, I was talking with a fellow student about Al-Jazeera News Network's plan to branch out into the Americas. The student, a Jew, saw the news of Al-Jazeera’s expansion as part of an emerging trend where people from the Islamic world are migrating to the West and bringing their ideas with them, including "anti-Semitism".
I did not wish to get into an argument about anti-Semitism, so I broadened the scope of the discussion and mentioned Islam's surge into Europe, which is threatening to change the social and political landscape there forever. He agreed.
As the conversation continued, I got the impression that he was fully aware of the potential for mass migration to be the harbinger of a clash of cultures. The student then told me about immigration to Israel (something I knew little about at the time) and the threat that internationalization posed to the survival of the Jews as a cohesive group, defined as a people who observe the Jewish faith or customs and have Jewish ancestry. I quickly realized how controversial his ideas would have been if only he were talking about a different ethnic group with that same interest in policy to safeguard the preservation of faith, customs or ancestry. For example, imagine that, tomorrow, France restricts immigration to ensure the survival of the Catholic faith and to keep out those who do not have a Catholic background or French ancestry. Even outside of France, news of such a development would be spread like wildfire in the media and widely protested. "These are not Western values", the media would lecture. This is not to say that the student was wrong to feel the way he did; he wanted to preserve his community, culture and way of life from destruction. Who could it possibly hurt? And what was so wrong about it?
Well, it appears that my former classmate does not have to worry, because Israel is slamming the door shut on all immigrants who are ''not'' of direct Jewish ancestry. Curiously, not a single media source in the West picked up the story. In fact, I would not have even known about the new policy in Israel had it not been for a single editorial in the Jerusalem Post, which tends to support secularism and is likely infuriated by the news:
Where is the outrage in the West? Where are the "breaking news" updates about the policy and its inconsistency with "Western values"?
I did not wish to get into an argument about anti-Semitism, so I broadened the scope of the discussion and mentioned Islam's surge into Europe, which is threatening to change the social and political landscape there forever. He agreed.
As the conversation continued, I got the impression that he was fully aware of the potential for mass migration to be the harbinger of a clash of cultures. The student then told me about immigration to Israel (something I knew little about at the time) and the threat that internationalization posed to the survival of the Jews as a cohesive group, defined as a people who observe the Jewish faith or customs and have Jewish ancestry. I quickly realized how controversial his ideas would have been if only he were talking about a different ethnic group with that same interest in policy to safeguard the preservation of faith, customs or ancestry. For example, imagine that, tomorrow, France restricts immigration to ensure the survival of the Catholic faith and to keep out those who do not have a Catholic background or French ancestry. Even outside of France, news of such a development would be spread like wildfire in the media and widely protested. "These are not Western values", the media would lecture. This is not to say that the student was wrong to feel the way he did; he wanted to preserve his community, culture and way of life from destruction. Who could it possibly hurt? And what was so wrong about it?
Well, it appears that my former classmate does not have to worry, because Israel is slamming the door shut on all immigrants who are ''not'' of direct Jewish ancestry. Curiously, not a single media source in the West picked up the story. In fact, I would not have even known about the new policy in Israel had it not been for a single editorial in the Jerusalem Post, which tends to support secularism and is likely infuriated by the news:
- excerpt from "Minister Sheetrit: Let our people into the Promised Land" by Michael Freund, The Jerusalem Post:
At the instigation of Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit, the government adopted a shameful decision aimed at slamming the door shut on groups of people who want to be Jewish and come to Israel. According to the cabinet communiqué, it was decided that the Interior Ministry "would issue entry visas for groups regarding conversion and the acquisition of citizenship only with government approval and in accordance with special criteria." But behind that rather innocuous sounding language lies a far more sinister objective, which is Sheetrit's stated determination to prevent groups with historical ties to the Jewish people from returning to Judaism and moving to Israel. (more)
Where is the outrage in the West? Where are the "breaking news" updates about the policy and its inconsistency with "Western values"?
