Login | Register

Post Reply 
Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
04-07-2014, 01:41 AM
Post: #1
Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-immigra...wish-value

Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?

April 6, 2014 —

Kevin MacDonald


[Image: israel_fence_ih_1.jpg]

African would-be “Refugees”/Infiltrators stopped by Israel’s fence. H/T CSM


GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s ominous squishiness in the face of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge drive, which has provoked a primary challenge from Economics professor Dave Brat, may be due to personal greed, but Jewish organizations clearly think he can be motivated by ethnic appeals. A friend recently forwarded me this email (links in original except where noted):

Quote:FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, March 24, 2014

CONTACT: Emma Stieglitz, emmaS@berlinrosen.com, (646) 200-5307

BEND THE ARC MARSHALS JEWISH VOTERS TO PRESSURE ERIC CANTOR ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

Jewish voters are ratcheting up the pressure on Majority Leader Eric Cantor to move comprehensive immigration reform [VDARE.com note: a.k.a. amnesty/ Immigration Surge] through the House. On Monday, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice launched a petition calling on Rep. Cantor to bring immigration reform to a vote. The effort, spearheaded by Bend the Arc, is a collaboration of many of the nation’s leading Jewish organizations.

The petition (at http://www.entrydenied.org) makes clear that immigration reform is a priority issue for the Jewish community:

“As American Jews, we believe in a nation that grants today’s immigrants access to the same basic freedoms and opportunities that drew our ancestors and yours.”

Jewish organizations are unanimous in support of the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge drive. This support for liberal immigration laws has a long history—the granddaddy of them all being the 40-year campaign to enact the 1965 immigration law that opened the doorto heavy immigration of all the peoples of the world.

But what is striking is that Jewish immigration enthusiasts have portrayed themselves as motivated entirely by a set of ethical values that are unique and central to Judaism. Thus Bend the Arcproclaims:

Quote:We are building a national movement that pursues justice as a core expression of Jewish tradition….Jewish tradition is about liberation and love for humankind. We believe in the dignity and inherent right of all people to live in a just, fair and compassionate society. As Jews immigrated to America, this belief was stowed in their luggage. Throughout American history, courageous Jews have worked with others to hold the nation to its promise, whether in the abolitionist movement, the anti-sweatshop movement, the movement against child labor, the modern labor movement, the civil rights movement or the movement for LGBT inclusion (just to name a few).

And it boasts:

Quote:Over the past year, Bend the Arc has organized around the issue of immigration, arranging meetings between Jewish leaders and congressional staff, hosting immigration-themed Shabbats, organizing petitions and participating in marches, vigils and town halls to deliver the message that immigration reform is a top priority for Jewish voters. In October, Bend the Arc’s rabbi-in-residence was arrested at a national demonstration for immigration reform alongside members of Congress during an act of civil disobedience on the National Mall.


A similar wall-to-wall Jewish lobbying effort in California is aimed at limiting deportations of illegal aliens. Again, their motives are the purest:

Quote:“Is immigration a Jewish issue?” [a California Assemblyman] pressed skeptically.

[Rabbi Larry Raphael of Congregation Sherith Israel] answered, “We believe it is.”

[Jewish Values at Heart of Immigration Reform, by Rachel Heller Zaimont, Jewish Journal, February 12, 2014]

An April 2 Google search for ‘immigration “Jewish values”‘ resulted in over 81,400 links to a wide range of Jewish organizations, including the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (which is deeply involved in recruiting African refugees for resettlement in the US), the American Jewish Committee, the National Council of Jewish Women, and the Union for Reform Judaism.

Clearly, from the mainstream Jewish perspective, swamping the historic American nation with peoples from all over the world is nothing less than a moral imperative. The tacit assumption: Jews are ethically superior—motivated by a unique set of specifically Jewish values that make them support displacement-level immigration into Western societies.

Here’s another recent example:

Quote:We are compelled to act because we remember our core story: We were strangers in a land that was not our own. The imagery of the Exodus and the Jewish story of immigration and rejection, of landlessness and powerlessness, continues to animate us and guide our consciousness of the fate of others. We have experienced the pain that comes from the separation of families, of closed borders, of inhumane immigration policies. Because Jewish memory is both eternal and inspirational, we believe that we must act to achieve immigration reform. We are proud to bring our own set of values to the forefront as we stand beside our many partners in the Asian, Latino and other faith communities on behalf of the undocumented and to seek justice for immigrants in California and throughout the United States.

[Jewish Values Inspire Immigration Reform, Jewish Journal, by Rabbi Ron Stern, May 22 2013]

Given that these sentiments are so central to the mainstream Jewish community in the US, you would expect that Jews in Israel would welcome immigrants from Africa and elsewhere with open arms.

But of course you would be wrong. African immigrants are mistreated, rounded up, and deported. Even African Jews have been subjected to a variety of indignities, including being given long-acting Depo Provera birth control shots.

Some American Jews are willing to say frankly that their interest is in Israel remaining a Jewish state, which would be compromised byAfrican immigration. An Orthodox rabbi explains:

Quote:Rationally, though, we recognize that every nation must place limits on the number of foreigners who wish to reside there. … In a country with approximately six million Jews, and over a million Arabs, the character and culture of the Jewish state will be diluted once a critical mass of non-Jews is allowed to permanently reside there. If the gates are completely open, Israel can be overrun with another million or more foreigners—non-Jews who do not share the values and destiny of the Jewish people, and the Jewish State will begin to evaporate. Obviously, the Torah recognizes limitations on a non-Jews’ right to live in the land of Israel.

[Jewish Values Online, undated]

Would that analogous sentiments had been permitted in America in 1965, when it was 90% White and a self-consciously Christian, European-derived civilization!

To anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Jewish history, the idea that a unique set of universalist ethical values defines Judaism would be surprising indeed. The traditional self-concept of Diaspora Jews was that the rewards of keeping the faith and obeying religious regulations will be many descendants (“I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore,” [Gen. 22:17]), a return to power, wealth and prosperity in Israel, and the destruction or enslavement of Israel’s enemies.

Rather than a universalist ethic, traditional Jewish ethics made strong distinctions in the morality of actions depending on whether Jews or non-Jews were involved. For example, radio personality Dennis Prager describes the results of asking 10 Talmudic scholars about returning an item acquired as the result of an error by a non-Jew:

Quote:Suppose you ordered an electric shaver from a store owned by non-Jews, and by accident the store sent you two shavers. Would you return the second shaver?

Nine said they would not. One said he would.

What is critical to understand is why they answered the way they did. The nine who would not return the second shaver were not crooks. They explained that halachah (Jewish law) forbade them from returning the other shaver. According to halachah, as they had been taught it, a Jew is forbidden to return a lost item to a non-Jew. The only exception is if the non-Jew knows a Jew found the item and not returning it would cause anti-Semitism or a Khilul Hashem (desecration of God’s name). The one who said he would return it gave that very reason — that it would be a Khilul Hashem if he didn’t return it and could be a Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of God’s name) if he did. But he, too, did not believe he was halachically bound to return the shaver.

The nine were not wrong, and they were not taught wrong. That is the halachah. Rambam (Maimonides) ruled that a Jew is permitted to profit from a non-Jew’s business error.

Can Halachah ever be wrong?, January 11, 2012.

Returning the item because of fear of anti-Semitism is hardly a principled moral position along the lines common among Western philosophers. Thus Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” commands that one act only if one would accept such an action as a universal law. But for the Talmudic scholar, including the one who returns the shaver, the Jewish ingroup retains a morally privileged position. This is without parallel in Western philosophy.

In fact, traditional Jewish law had different penalties for a variety of crimes depending on whether or not one was a Jew—not only taking advantage of business errors, but theft, rape, and murder (reviewed in Ch. 6 of my A People That Shall Dwell Alone). The Jewish law of slavery was highly elaborated—Jews owned and traded slaves throughout history, until the practice was banned in the 19thcentury as a result of anti-slavery movements originating in Western societies. But there were very clear differences between the recommended treatment of Jewish and non-Jewish slaves, much to the detriment of the latter. Even proselytes who had converted to Judaism had a lower moral standing than other Jews—a fact that has doubtless weighed heavily with prospective converts in traditional societies.

Israel Shahak, the late Israeli Zionism-skeptic provides many examples of the different moral status of Jews and non-Jews. For example,

Quote:Sexual intercourse between a married Jewish woman and any man other than her husband is a capital offense for both parties, and one of the three most heinous sins. The status of Gentile women is very different. The Halakhah presumes all Gentiles to be utterly promiscuous and the verse “whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue [of semen] is like the issue of horses”40 is applied to them. Whether a Gentile woman is married or not makes no difference, since as far as Jews are concerned the very concept of matrimony does not apply to Gentiles (“There is no matrimony for a heathen”). Therefore, the concept of adultery also does not apply to intercourse between a Jewish man and a Gentile woman; rather, the Talmud 41 equates such intercourse to the sin of bestiality. (For the same reason, Gentiles are generally presumed not to have certain paternity.)[From Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years (1994)]

Shahak provides several similar instances from the rabbinic literature in which offending words were altered in the interests of political expediency, only to be restored in more recent times in Israel because the rabbis had become confident that they would not result in persecution.

Shahak concludes that the nationalist ethics of Judaism survives in the contemporary world:

Quote:Anyone who lives in Israel knows how deep and widespread these attitudes of hatred and cruelty to towards all Gentiles are among the majority of Israeli Jews. Normally these attitudes are disguised from the outside world, but since the establishment of the State of Israel, the 1967 war and the rise of Begin, a significant minority of Jews, both in Israel and abroad, have gradually become more open about such matters.

In recent years the inhuman precepts according to which servitude is the “natural” lot of Gentiles have been publicly quoted in Israel, even on TV, by Jewish farmers exploiting Arab labor, particularly child labor. Gush Emunim leaders have quoted religious precepts which enjoin Jews to oppress Gentiles, as a justification of the attempted assassination of Palestinian mayors and as divine authority for their own plan to expel all the Arabs from Palestine.

Given the ingroup morality of traditional Jewish society, whence this self-image of American Jews that they are following a universalist ethic that commands them to admit tens of millions of non-whites into countries established and (precariously now) dominated politically and culturally by whites?

I mentioned Kant above because the origin of this Jewish self-conception was a reaction to Kant’s writing on Jews. According to Kant, writing in 1793, the Jewish community had excluded

Quote:from its communion the entire human race, on the ground that it was a special people chosen by God for Himself—[an exclusiveness] which showed enmity toward all other peoples and which, therefore, evoked the enmity of all

(Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, 1793).

Kant perceived Judaism as a national/ethnic movement with an ideology of eventual political reunification of its dispersed members. He wrote:

Quote:Judaism is really not a religion at all but merely a union of a number of people who, since they belonged to a particular stock, formed themselves into a commonwealth under purely political laws, and not into a church; nay, it was intended to be merely an earthly state so that, were it possibly to be dismembered through adverse circumstances, there would still remain to it (as part of its very essence) the political faith in its eventual reestablishment.

(Emphasis in original).

In other words, Kant understood that Jewish ethics were essentially national self-interest rather than anything having to do with ethics as he understood it. And because Kant was so prominent, Jews regarded his views as threatening. Jewish reformers quickly took up the intellectual challenge of remaking the intellectual basis of Judaism in a manner that would appeal to Western intellectuals. As John Murray Cuddihy noted in his Ordeal of Civility:

Quote:These Diaspora groups were uninterested in actual history; they were apologists, ideologists, prefabricating a past in order to answer embarrassing questions, to outfit a new identity, and to ground a claim to equal treatment in the modern world. [P. 65]

The result: a new emphasis among these Jewish reformers on purely religious faith as the moral basis of Judaism. Sermons and intellectual defenses of Judaism now focused not on the minutiae of ceremonial law or on the eventual reestablishment of a Jewish political entity, but on ideals of virtuous behavior.

As Michael A. Mayer put it in his Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism

Quote:Thus, instead of being the religion of no morality—as Kant defined it—the Reformers sought to present Judaism as the religion most exclusively concerned with morality, and hence most worthy of the future.

Because of the critical importance of morality, there was an attempt to reinterpret passages from Jewish religious writings that represented a doubtful morality—a project which is of continuing interest in the modern world. An influential example: prominent German-Jewish philosopher Moritz Lazarus (1824–1903) who, according to Ismar Schorsch in his Jewish Reactions to German Anti-Semitism, 1870-1914, published

Quote:…a classic apologia of Judaism under emancipation, successfully expunging every trace of the particular, the irrational, and the historical from what Lazarus held to be the essential unity of Jewish ethics [P. 73]

(This earned him the condemnation of Orthodoxy). In Lazarus’sreconstruction, the essence of Judaism was its belief in “the oneness of God, the oneness of the world, and the oneness of humanity.” “God acknowledged as One, beside whom there is no other, cannot be national. . . . [This concept of God] so illumined, with its purity and sublimity, the soul of the Jewish people that Israel was fitted to become a ‘light of the nations’.”

This historical revisionism was completely successful. By the middle of the 20th century, Jewish self-conceptions, particularly among Reform Jews and secular Jews, were completely shaped by the self-image of universal moral idealism. For example, in remarks on a 1961 Commentary symposium of “Jewishness and the Younger Intellectuals,” Norman Podhoretz, described the contributors as

Quote:Believing (on the basis, it should be emphasized, of an obviously scant acquaintance with the literature and history of Judaism) that the essence of Judaism is the struggle for universal justice and human brotherhood, these young intellectuals assert over and over again that anyone who fights for the Ideal is to that degree more Jewish than a man who merely observes the rituals or merely identifies himself with the Jewish community” (Emphasis added).

“Scant acquaintance with the literature and history of Judaism” indeed!

Call me cynical. But the way I see it is that overtly nationalist ethics are alive and well in Israel, as it rids itself of African migrants and systematically oppresses the Palestinians via ethnic cleansing and apartheid, while in the U.S. and elsewhere in the Western Diaspora the organized Jewish community and most Jewish intellectuals pose as enlightened universalists. (Right now liberal Zionists are tying themselves in knots trying to justify Israel in the face of the pro-Palestinian Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement.)

This tactic is effective because Europeans are peculiarly susceptible to appeals to morality—the flip side of the tendency for Whites to absolutely horrified when labeled a “racist” or “White supremacist” because they oppose immigration or for other contraventions of Political Correctness.

A basic strategy of progressive intellectuals in the Diaspora has been to frame the dispossession of Europeans as a moral imperative because they are quite aware that such rhetoric is the coin of the realm in the West (and nowhere else). For example, New York-based Rabbi Marc Schneier, President of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress, stated in March of 2011

Quote:If Europe wants to remain true to its ethical and spiritual foundations, it must embrace people from different cultures, religions and ways of life. If not, it will not only fail as a concept, it will lose its soul. In Paris, Muslim and Jewish leaders pledge to stand together against the rise of extreme-rightist parties, European Jewish Press March 9, 2011]

But these activists exempt Israel from a similar moral obligation to efface its ethnic basis as a Jewish state.

But when we get beyond the smokescreen of such hypocritical moral posturing, we should be aware of the real ethnic interests involved: Diaspora Jewish groups in the West see themselves as benefiting from displacement-level immigration because it lessens the power of the White majority. The “lesson of the Holocaust,” as perpetrated by a homogeneous, racially conscious society, looms large. As Leonard Glickman, president and CEO of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society once put it, when asked why his organization was importing Somali Muslims: “The more diverse American society is the safer [Jews] are.”

Indeed, the image that homogeneous, racially conscious White societies are fundamentally morally depraved has become the central cultural theme throughout the West—the white race being the cancer of human history, in Susan Sontag’s famous phrase.

Disoriented by this constant drumbeat, Western peoples have been defenseless against their own disempowerment. They can only begin to defend their legitimate interests when they challenge the hypocrisy, and historical inaccuracy, of Jewish immigration enthusiast claims to a unique, and imperative, moral vision.


Kevin MacDonald [email him] is professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach and a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer. For his website, click here.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 02:07 AM
Post: #2
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
interesting reading.

I wonder if his classes are popular.

he's a tenured prof.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 02:52 AM
Post: #3
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
Obviously, great lecturers aren't necessarily great researchers and vice-versa.

Rate My Professors might give a clue, although, because of McDonald's notoriety, I'm sure there are people writing reviews there (both positive and negative) that have never taken his classes.

I found his Culture of Critique book, while excellent, a bit dry, which is true of most academic writing. I prefer his essays and articles, though I plan to read his other books, too. I consider him the most important contemporary writer on Zionism.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 02:56 AM
Post: #4
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
they try to paint him as a vicious hater, but look how soft spoken and gentle mannered he is lol



Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 03:05 AM
Post: #5
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
to be fair a lot of liberal jews are against the Israelis kicking out the black jews and other groups.

what I find funny is that it's so hard for Chinese or Asians to get citizenship while other groups are given amnesty and all kinds of free handouts.

they're definitely trying to phase out the middle class and create a two tiered society with a small buffer of middle class peeps to separate the 2.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 03:49 AM
Post: #6
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
(04-07-2014 03:05 AM)EVILYOSHIDA Wrote:  to be fair a lot of liberal jews are against the Israelis kicking out the black jews and other groups.

what I find funny is that it's so hard for Chinese or Asians to get citizenship while other groups are given amnesty and all kinds of free handouts.

they're definitely trying to phase out the middle class and create a two tiered society with a small buffer of middle class peeps to separate the 2.

I agree.

Chinese and (mainly) other East Asians don't fit the script around Cultural Marxist victimhood. East Asians have faced some of the greatest adversity in recent history, yet they have also excelled wherever they've migrated. They are the ultimate rags-to-riches success story, which defies the victimization 'logic' of the left-liberal agenda.

A while back, I read an article that argued that East Asian success in America is a result of the "middle class" status of East Asians migrants -- the argument being that any group picked from a privileged strata would have had the same outcomes. The reality (in comparison to the article's argument) is, I'm sure, quite the opposite, especially if you consider that China, until the '60s, was an extremely impoverished state. China's economic growth, and that of the Asian Tiger countries, seems unparalleled in history. Moreover, Chinese and other East Asians immigrants, wherever they end up, behave as model immigrants -- quietly going by their business and contributing to the economic growth of a country. This pattern of East Asians, again, defied the victimhood (and dependency) role assigned to new immigrants "of colour" in the West.

Of course, I heard Chinese people referred to as "Asian Jews". I don't see the comparison, since I'm not aware of Chinese trying to politically influence societies they migrate to in the way that Jewish elites have traditionally done.

To be sure, there are Chinese abroad who adopt and promote destructive left-wing agendas, but generally they are few in number (seem to be mostly impressionable young women, usually generations removed from China); the vast majority of Chinese (and other East Asian immigrants), by comparison, engage in behaviours that violate their assigned "victimized" status, which makes them easy targets of the hostile elites working to destroy Western civilization.

I maintain that Asia, after Europe, would be the next (and final) piece of the puzzle of establishing one-world rule. Nothing is a foregone conclusion, of course. As the article Roland posted by Patrick Buchanan discussed, Russia is now the epicentre of opposition to globalist rule. China, as Russia's #1 ally, will continue to play a critical role in opposing globalism, particularly in Asia.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 03:51 AM
Post: #7
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
Japanese americans fully assimilate.

Koreans and Chinese don't assimilate as much but they don't bother the wider society. they make their own enclaves.

thoughtful post brics.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 04:01 AM
Post: #8
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
I try not to read stuff like this anymore because it just makes me furiously angry and I don't see what I can realistically and pragmatically do in response.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2014, 04:44 AM
Post: #9
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
^^^ Alas, transformation is usually slow, but (largely due to the internet) people are slowly waking up the current reality facing the world. The more it's discussed, the more people will be aware of it (and, hopefully, respond positively and constructively to the situation).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2014, 08:18 PM
Post: #10
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
Good read BC!

dead soul
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 09:25 AM
Post: #11
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
Massive immigration and open borders are in fact values (or, more accurately, tactics) of The Tribe worldwide . . . er, ah, well, except for one particular location where a wall has been built to keep the goyim out.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 10:54 AM
Post: #12
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
(04-11-2014 09:25 AM)Roland Bates Wrote:  Massive immigration and open borders are in fact values (or, more accurately, tactics) of The Tribe worldwide . . . er, ah, well, except for one particular location where a wall has been built to keep the goyim out.



Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 11:14 AM
Post: #13
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
[Image: images41_zps991e109d.jpg]

dead soul
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 08:23 PM
Post: #14
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
(04-11-2014 10:54 AM)CTsar Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 09:25 AM)Roland Bates Wrote:  Massive immigration and open borders are in fact values (or, more accurately, tactics) of The Tribe worldwide . . . er, ah, well, except for one particular location where a wall has been built to keep the goyim out.




wow.

seen it a few times, but it's still wow each time.

Those who know, know! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 08:51 PM
Post: #15
RE: Is Immigration Really A “Jewish Value”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqrit

Iqrit (Arabic: إقرت‎ or إقرث, Iqrith) was a Palestinian Christian village, located 25 kilometres (16 miles) northeast of Acre. Originally allotted to form part of an Arab state under the 1947 UN Partition Plan, it was seized and forcefully depopulated then razed by the Israel Defense Forces during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and their territory later became part of the new State of Israel. All of its Christian inhabitants were forced to flee to Lebanon and neighboring Palestinian villages after they were expelled by Jewish forces in 1948-1951. Descendents to this day maintain an outpost in the village church, and bury their dead in its cemetery. All attempts to cultivate its lands are uprooted by the Israeli Lands Administration.

Iqrit contains mosaic floors, remains of a wine press, rock-hewn tombs, cisterns, and granite implements. The village also has many other archaeological sites in its vicinity. The Canaanites erected a statue for the god Melqart of Tyre in the village. When the Crusaders occupied Iqrit, they called it Acref. Açref is a name still commonly used for the village among surrounding Bedouin tribes. After the Crusaders left, Iqrit remained devastated, until it was re-built, joining the county of Tibnin, district of Safad by 1596. At this time, its population numbered 374 people with an economy dependent largely on goats, beehives and agriculture. There was a press used for both olive and grape production. The population dropped to about 100 people by the late nineteenth century. The villagers were Christians, and had a modern church and houses build of stone. The village area contained numerous archaeological sites.

Like a number of other villages in the neighborhood, Iqrit was linked to the coastal highway from Acre to Ras an-Naqura via a secondary road leading to Tarbikha. There were 339 people living in 50 houses in 1931 and that number rose to 490 by 1945. At the moment of their eviction in November 1948, there were 491 citizens in Iqrit, 432 of them Greek Catholics, inhabiting the entire area of the village. Some of the 59 Muslims of the village rented their homes in Iqrit, while others built their houses in esh-Shafaya.

Only part of the village land was cultivated and the rest was covered with woods of oak, laurel and carob trees. By 1948, the village owned about 600 dunams (600,000 m²) of private property with groves of fig trees that served all inhabitants of Iqrit and the surroundings. The groves covered the hill of al-Bayad, and the remaining cultivated land was used for crops of lentils, as well as tobacco and other fruit trees.

There were a private elementary school which was administrated by the Greek Catholic Archdiocese, two natural water springs, and many other water-wells for collected rainwater within the village area, including a large pool for rainwater. There were many threshing floors mainly located between the built-up village lands and the cemetery.

The big Greek Catholic church remains standing.

According to Morris, the villagers of Iqrit were outright expelled by the Israeli Army in November 1948, (together with the villagers of Kafr Bir'im, Nabi Rubin and Tarbikha) "without Cabinet knowledge, debate, or approval - though, almost inevitably, they received post facto Cabinet endorsement." While some of the former inhabitants of Iqrit became refugees in Lebanon, most are now internally displaced Palestinians who are also citizens of Israel. Iqrit was captured on October 31, 1948 by the Haganah's Oded Brigade during Operation Hiram, an Israeli offensive which advanced on the coastal road towards Lebanon. Iqrit and Tarbikha surrendered and the villagers stayed in their homes. That situation did not last for long. Iqrit and a number of other villages in the region were affected by a policy known as "an Arabless border strip".

Expulsion

Six days after its surrender, on 5 November 1948, the Israeli Army ordered the villagers to surrender the village, and that they would be returned in two weeks' time when the military operations were over. Some went to Lebanon and the Israeli Army trucked the majority to Rame, a town between Acre and Safad.

In July 1951, the villagers of Iqrit pleaded their case before Israel's Supreme Court, and the court ruled in favour of the right to return to their village. After this judgement, the Military Government found another justification to prevent them from returning. The villagers appealed to the Supreme Court again and were scheduled to have their case considered on 6 February 1952. However, on Christmas Day in 1951, Israeli Defense Forces destroyed the village. According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Israeli soldiers took the mukhtar of Iqrit to the top of a nearby hill to force him to watch as Israeli troops blew up every house in the village.

In his book Blood Brothers, Father Elias Chacour, who was a child away at school at the time, records the story of what happened, as told to him by his brothers:

For the second time, the village elders marched across the hill and presented the order to the Zionist soldiers...Without question or dispute, the commanding officer read the order. He shrugged. 'This is fine...We need some time to pull out. You can return on the 25th.'

On Christmas! What an incredible Christmas gift for the village. The elders fairly ran across the hill to Gish to spread the news. At long last they would all be going home. The Christmas Eve vigil became a celebration of thanksgiving and joyful praise. On Christmas morning...bundled in sweaters and old coats supplied by the Bishop's relief workers, the villagers gathered in the first light of day...Mother, Father, Wardi, and my brothers all joined in singing a jubilant Christmas hymn as they mounted the hill...At the top of the hill their hymn trailed into silence...Why were the soldiers still there? In the distance, a soldier shouted, and they realized they had been seen. A cannon blast sheared the silence. Then another—a third...Tank shells shrieked into the village, exploding in fiery destruction. Houses blew apart like paper. Stones and dust flew amid the red flames and billowing black smoke. One shell slammed into the side of the church, caving in a thick stone wall and blowing off half the roof. The bell tower teetered, the bronze bell knelling, and somehow held amid the dust clouds and cannon fire... Then all was silent—except for the weeping of women and the terrified screams of babies and children.

Mother and Father stood shaking, huddled together with Wardi and my brothers. In a numbness of horror, they watched as bulldozers plowed through the ruins, knocking down much of what had not already blown apart or tumbled. At last, Father said—to my brothers or to God, they were never sure—'Forgive them.' Then he led them back to Gish.


—Father Elias Chacour

In its third verdict (Feb. 1952), the court blamed the villagers for depending on promises from the military ruler of Galilee, instead of benefiting from the legal remedy which was given to them by the court in its first relevant verdict.

Aftermath to the present-day[edit]
A number of Jewish settlements were built near or on the village's land. They are Shomera (1949 on Tarbikha ruins), Even Menachem (1960) and Gornot HaGalil (1980).

Today, only the building of Greek Catholic Church still stands. There is rubble from the destroyed houses and some fig, grape, almond, olive and other orchards. On the shoulder looking at the road passing by from the north, the cemetery of Iqrit is still located, fenced and annually maintained. There is a cowshed that belongs to the settlement of Shomera, on the western entrance of the village, as well.

The first legal action against the state of Israel was brought in 1951 by 5 men of Iqrit when Muhammad Nimr al-Hawari acting as their lawyer was instrumental in gaining the right of return for the men of Iqrit. On 31 July 1951 the Israeli courts recognised the rights of the villagers to their land and their right to return to it. The court said the land was not abandoned and therefore could not be placed under the custodian of enemy property.

In the 1970s, villagers from Iqrit conducted a series of sit-ins in the town's former church over a period of six years, and the case of Iqrit (and of Kafr Biri'm) was frequently covered by the Israeli media. Several prominent Israeli cultural and artistic figures supported the movement to repatriate the Iqrit villagers and public empathy for their plight was widespread. While the Israeli authorities recognized the right to return of the villagers in principle, officials resisted implementing this right. Said Golda Meir in 1972:

It is not only consideration of security [that prevent] an official decision regarding Bi'rim and Iqrit, but the desire to avoid [setting] a precedent. We cannot allow ourselves to become more and more entangled and to reach a point from which we are unable to extricate ourselves."

Meron Benvenisti notes how it has been argued that the villagers of Iqrit and Bi'rim are not the only present-absentees in Israel, and therefore recognizing their right of return is perceived as setting a "dangerous precedent" that would be followed by other similar demands. However, Benvenisti himself has argued that it could be a positive precedent if the Iqrit villagers were to be allocated the small amount of empty land they need to establish a community settlement on their own land.

The operational name of the Munich massacre of Israeli athletes in 1972 was named after this town and Kafr Bir'im.

In 2003, some of Iqrit's villagers repetitioned the Supreme Court so as to facilitate their return to Iqrit, but the petition was rejected by the court. Villagers continue to hold out hope for their right of return. Recently, four families built their houses opposite the village from west, on a side hill of al-Bayad.

Afterwards, in August 2012, a large demonstration was held in the city of Haifa demanding Israel to grant the descendents the right of return to both villages that suffered the same depopulation and the destroyment, Iqrit and Kafr Bi'reem.

http://www.iqrit.org/?LanguageId=1




dead soul
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Illegal Immigration FAKE NEWS? karasu 5 642 03-05-2019 05:53 PM
Last Post: karasu
  Hillary throws in the towel on Open Borders, blames loss on immigration CTsar 9 980 11-28-2018 05:09 AM
Last Post: karasu
  Asian Nations Cannot Afford Immigration. White Nations Can. I'll tell you why... DonJohnson 189 15,359 02-07-2018 12:33 AM
Last Post: Shahanshah
  Trump hater and immigration advocate George Clooney moving to US for security reasons CTsar 3 1,375 07-09-2017 05:37 PM
Last Post: kungfool

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)