Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Black
If what Mr Chamish says here is accurate, it would seem that there is a type of Jew abroad on the planet who is as willing to do to some of his own, what we (and the Jewish victims) might have thought was reserved only for us.
|
Its hardly new news Jack, but the article is quite interesting, although accuracy would be a major concern with the evidence used in the article, in that it adds to the, quite small, body of literature on the conflict between the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim (you can loosely throw in the Mizrahim with the Sephardim since the Ashkenazim seem to make little practical distinction between the two former powers in jewry).
As I recall for perspective it stems from the time of transition in between the declining power of the Sephardim and the rising power of the Ashkenazim in the 17-19th centuries. The Sephardim seem to have largely regarded the Ashkenazim as dirty, illiterate and very ignorant religious fanatics who they promptly banished (or in some cases relegated them to the absolute fringes) from their synagogues and society. Although some individual Ashkenazi jews were accepted, you'll find notations of this in most histories of the jews in Flanders/Holland/England and port cities such as Venice, they were the exception not the rule.
Then when you had the big waves of Ashkenazi emigration from the pale of settlement in the 1880's onwards to the present time. The Sephardim promptly disassociated themselves from the Ashkenazim, although they often tried to feed, clothe and shelter their fellows jews they found their racial kinsmen repulsive in most aspects of the word, and then started to, although they didn't get very far with it, jump on the bandwagon campaign for stricter immigration rules against the Ashkenazim (Sydney Webb, although not a jew himself but it gives perspective, one of the founders of the Fabian Society and Bolshevik apologist famously thought that all jews ought to be sterilized due to his experiences with Ashkenazi jews).
It can be argued that the Sephardim reacted the way they did, because they felt that the Ashkenazim were destablising their power base in the countries, which they occupied and that they were highlighting the jewish problem to the folk of those countries, because of their outlandish, uncouth, criminal, underhand and generally foul behaviour. Although the roots of the conflict go back to the 17th century: the conflict only really blossomed into its modern varient since the complete takeover of the jewish powerbase and organisations by the Ashkenazim following the end of the second world war and the beginning of the occupation of Germany.
The Ashkenazim as you might expect from their racial character took this as a grave insult and ever since then they've been quietly try to rid themselves of the Sephardim as a form of revenge (while presuming that there would be no consequences for the Ashkenazim). Since the [governing] 'atheist twenty-percent' in Israel is largely Ashkenazi, but most of the Sephardim are part of the religious community, it gives them the perfect opportunity to do so. Anyone who follows the vicious internal spats in Israel will well know what I allude to here when I say that the Ashkenazim take any opportunity to attack the Sephardim under the veil of attacking 'religious jews' and 'settlers' and vice versa (against 'Israel's anti-Semitic government' and the 'atheist communist conspiracy').