I am not convinced it is that clear cut. For example, Jewish culture survived the Arabic influence. And for that matter took on aspects of it, to create it’s own flavor right in the Middle East didn’t it? And in the same way those who millennia ago dispersed into Europe took on parts of the cultures they adopted creating, for example the unique and rich Yiddish Jewish culture. Which is the pure indigenous culture exactly that needs to be protected from the spread of other cultures?
"Pure" indigenous cultures? You are on ugly ground there, to speak of "purity". Terms like that resonate, not in a good way, with Jewish people.
There is no requirement for "purity", nor prohibitions against cultural interaction, and there is no restriction on adapting certain cultural aspects when two cultures are in close proximity. Its obvious that people in a diaspora will adopt specific cultural traits as necessary to function in an entirely different culture. Cultural trade is normal, and not the subject of this post.
The Jewish people are ONE people. There are no real fundamental differences in Jewish culture between Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi. (Though each will argue their food is superior). And I'm seeing lots of pushback in the Jewish community against trying to make those distinctions. It fuels the Tinmores of the world, by suggesting that it is acceptable to divide the Jewish people into three different groups, with three different sets of "rights" (or non-rights, more likely). This is HOW people like Tinmore come to believe that the Ashkenazi are not "real" Jews. The Jewish people are ONE people.
That the Jewish culture managed to survive through all these thousands of years after everything they have been subjected to is a miracle. (And yes, as a religious person, I use that term deliberately).
So it is the dominant culture.
To a certain extent, I both agree and disagree with this. The culture is dominant is a very small piece of territory, true. It is a remarkable achievement for an indigenous peoples. The only indigenous peoples who have lost and then restored their culture in their traditional territory. An example for other indigenous peoples, certainly. First Nations in Canada are travelling this road as well, and I'm very happy to see it. However, the Jewish culture is still non-dominant in the region and very much still under fire, both from external threats and from those who suggest that protective measures, such as special considerations in constitutions, are both unnecessary and morally repugnant.
They are not in danger of losing their culture short of a catastrophic event.
Well, the Jewish people are pretty used to catastrophic events. And there are plenty of people and governments calling for catastrophic events. And plenty of the international community withholding or removing support for the Jewish people and Israel. Or insisting that if the Jewish people or Israel just "changed their ways", then they could avoid their deserved slaughter. Which all feels pretty familiar. So if you think the Jewish people feel safe, you are wrong.
But there ARE others who are in danger of losing their culture: the Bedouin for example who are indigenous to a portion of Israel and who, like most nomadic peoples around the world now, are truly losing their culture to the onslaught of settled agricultural and urban cultures.
I see this as a slightly different issue, being the tension between modernization and traditional lifestyles. This could occur in peoples of the same culture, and isn't necessarily a clash between cultures.
