"Life in America for Jews is safe and good," said Mark Robbins, 42, a Conservative rabbi who made aliyah in August with his wife and two young children. "The push for me came, truthfully, from the incredible cost of raising Jewish kids in the States."
Last year about 5000 American Jews came to live in Israel, a very respectable number. Apart from the cost of a good education and health care, the economy is "not the reason, but it's a reason American Jews are making aliyah." The economy was an issue even for those without children - and the rates of aliyah among this group seem to be rising. Half of olim in 2008 and 2009 were between the ages of 18 and 35.
20 comments:
The article doesn't explain how Rabbi Robbins will make a living. Last time I checked, Conservative Rabbis were not in high demand in Israel. The article talks a lot about how much the olim will get in the way of benefits but it doesn't say what they will contribute to Israel.
If the US Jewish population is 5 million then it will only take 1,000 years for all the Jews to make aliyah at the rate of 5,000 per year.
K
Conservative Rabbis are in demand among American communities and there are a few and they are growing. If he is conservative enough, he will find a job in the religious establishment. If worse comes to worst, he can teach or become a stock exchange analyst.
In no way the aliyah is depleting American Jewry, which I hope will grow. But these young enthusiastic immigrants lift Israeli public's morale, and fire their rather cooling Zionism.
To me this is a sign of insecurity - Greeks don't need confirmation that Greeks from other nations are moving to their country to validate their own country - they "know" what a great country it is (even if it isn't) and don't care what others think. The problem with such validation is that maybe next year economic conditions will be better in the US or some rocket attacks in Israel (God forbid) will get some publicity and then the # of US olim will drop. This will not make the Zionist experiment any less valid than it was this year.
K
Insecurity is Israel's second name. It is not a secure place to live. But we have no other one.
Why don't you all come back to South Africa?
Anon.
I assume "all" means all the South African Jews that have left. Maybe if you made S. Africa a place where people were not fearful of being murdered in their cars every time they went out then the Jews would come back. Actually S. Africa has done a reasonable job for a society with such disparities but this kind of gap creates an almost impossible tension. Chile is supposed to be a stable place (economically if not seismically) but as soon as the terremoto disrupted the normal order the social tensions came to the surface and it was clear that there were many "have nots" (most appeared to be of native Indian or mixed stock) in the society who were looking on with envy at the flat screen TV's etc. in the fancy shops and who were willing to take advantage as soon as the opportunity presented itself.
K
K, the inevitability of the current South African situation should have been evident to a lot of the 'liberal' whites (eg Slovo, et al) who argued so vociferously against the old SA government, and who did so much to render SA inhospitable to your people and mine.
This is really a warning about similar voices arguing for open borders, economic chicanery and military weakness in the USA and Europe.
The real goal is the destruction of western civilization, which as you correctly point out, is now under threat in SA and has already been lost in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa.
"Justice"?? I don't think so.
Anon.
I hope that the loss will be temporary.
Inevitability is the key word. Now all of those who predicted that everything was going to turn out fine were fools who should have known better (or leftists who did in fact know better but lied), but in the end a situation where a small minority rules a large majority forever was not sustainable.
K
No, but the present situation was not the only alternative. It had to change, for sure, but not the way it did.
We are effectively powerless, except for what our brains can deliver, and we gave up our physical security for empty BS promises of a non-racial Utopia, seduced by a cabal of silver-tongued and very evil white socialists masquerading as the embodiment of morality and justice.
Google (Images)'Boer genocide' for a quick pictorial education, or visit 'I luv SA'.
And the lesson should be clear for both the USA and Israel:
Do not be taken in by these liars.
Anon.
The only thing I can say is that it could have been much worse (see Rhodesia). On the whole, the S. African black leadership seem to understand that you cannot just kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, that if they get rid of all the whites they will end up starving like their brothers in Zimbabwe. That their own lifestyle and the tax revenues which fund it depends on the whites sticking around to run things, so that it is in their interest to keep the whites not for the sake of the whites but out of their own selfish interest. This is remarkable restraint because the "natural" thinking is to just grab all the loot you can plunder as quickly as you can (after all, all this was "stolen" from them - shouldn't a victim be entitled to recover his stolen property immediately?) and worry about the consequences later. There have been a few white victims, but whites in the US are also sometimes assaulted and murdered by criminals too (most of whom are minorities). Most S. African Whites still have their lives and their property, at least for the time being. So, as I said before, it could have been worse, much worse.
K
Why was power transfer so much worse in Rhodesia than in other African countries?
First of all the inequality was greater - the locals poorer and the whites owning large mechanized farms. Second the whites were a smaller % of the population than SA and so had less power after the transfer. Third, they waited too long so power was not handed over on friendly terms, only after a civil war. The S. African Whites wisely made a deal before the black population became 100% bitter and polarized against them, and the black politicians that took power were at least only semi-corrupt. Mandela was a saint by African standards. Mugabe emerged as the strong man military leader of the uprising - such men almost always make lousy leaders - in other African countries the caudillos were just as bad or even worse (sometimes much worse) to their own black brethren. See Rwanda. The S. African whites can count themselves lucky - think what would happen in Israel if Hamas took power in Tel Aviv, heaven forbid.
K
K, you are seeing the upside correctly.
But look at the trajectory:
Mandela...Mbeki...Zuma...Malema(next,do the research on this guy).
Not encouraging.
Anon.
The record of black self-rule in the post Colonial period has been utterly abysmal from one end of Africa to the other, and even places with a promising start eventually deteriorated once the residual civilizing effect of institutions created by Whites wore off, so it's not surprising that S. Africa's luck will not hold forever, unfortunately.
K
If the US was a real friend to Africa, they would bolster the position and security of minorities like whites and Indians, and permit a more honest approach to telling the sad truth.
But Africa cannot be discussed except in language that would have made Orwell blush; and the whites and others are just going to have to defend themselves.
So much for our kith and kin. Your kith and kin does a much better job of defending Israel. We have fallen for the propaganda but you have not.
Anon.
The same self-hating leftists that hate SA also hate Israel. Given their self-hatred, any loss for whites is seen as well deserved - the "chickens coming home to roost". So not only will they not lift a finger to help you, they will actively applaud your demise.
K
In fact they have, and will, continue to engineer it.
And then they will move on to you.
You know that's true.
Anon.
But there is also backlash. In Holland the "far right" anti-immigrant party of Geert Wilders is predicted to win the most seats in the Dutch parliament. Is it possible to be the most popular party and yet be "far" right? Doesn't being the most popular by definition put you at the center? Of course leftist rags would never concede this - THEY get to decide where the center is, somewhere between extreme socialist and moderate socialist.
K
They are trying him in Holland, for 'hate speech'.
Holland might be the first country in Europe to be lost to the west.
Paradoxically, Wilders' party might come to hold the most seats in parliament in the upcoming election; not an absolute majority, but the biggest single party representation.
Will he become prime minister, at the same time he is being attacked by the judiciary?
Interesting times.
Anon.
Post a Comment