Is That Legal?

The Refugee Convention was passed partly as a result of the Holocaust, and helped fuel Muslim immigration. You could argue that he's alluding to that when he speaks of "relaxed borders" and "tolerance". But it's a stretch--I'm afraid your interpretation may be correct.

indeed...i doubt we (as a culture) ever fell out of love with exclusionism and the possibility of having final solutions to disputes with "other" groups....

But it's scary to see it so plainly written out.

I think you're wrong about the reading of this, though I don't think you're wrong to find the article, or my fellow Jews' pleasure in it, troubling.

I think the writer is making a link between the Holocaust and the "relaxed borders and ... cultural and moral relativism, under the absurd pretext of tolerance." The whole article is so filled with generalizations and stereotypes that it's not at all hard to believe that the author is a critic of post-war "liberal guilt" ...

Yeah, and all European Muslims -- every one of the 20 million -- are stupid, ignorant, and living in free government housing. Hard to see how this kind of argument can lead to anything but an eliminationist end. If every European Muslim is a parasite (collectively forming a cancer, to use the familiar language), and none make any contribution to society at all, then why not get rid of them?

Frightening to see this argument, but more frightening to see it in Europe. Where we've heard it before.

I don't endorse this essay because it is premised on group think. Still, it is important to recall that there was a solid relationship between the Nazis and fascistic Muslim and Christian elements in the Middle East. The Mufti was rather excited about the elimination of Jews, and if I'm recalling Michael Totten's journalistic efforts correctly, the fascist legacy is alive and well today. A fair number of Christian phalangist paramilitaries to this day still shoot the Hitler salute by way of greeting and some even display the swastika.

Either way, any broad political approach based on group identity is fundamentally flawed. While some immutable characteristics (e.g. genetically determined abilities) are highly relevant in some disciplines - for instance a sprinter must have been born with lots of fast twitch muscle fiber - it is wrong in the factual sense to presume that immutable characteristics and religion (which sometimes approaches an immutable characteristic) necessarily dictate one's conscious choices about how to act, vote, treat others, etc.

The problem for Europe, right now, is how to frankly admit and then humanely address a burgeoning radical Muslim problem, without resorting the old racist attitudes and approaches of the past. Not all Muslim immigrants cause problems, I'd venture that the vast majority do not. Some do cause big problems - there were problems with honor killings and violent Muslim ghettos that nobody wanted to talk about even 15 years ago when I lived in Europe, and it seems to have gotten much worse. Unfortunately, it's not always the reasonable middle in a population, that winds up being the face of that population and even running things, especially within insular commmunities.

As for the non-Muslim Europeans, I'm not sure how you go about teaching an entire population to be nuanced, to be able to admit that there are problems and to seek solutions without rushing towards draconian, all-or-nothing approaches.

Well, I read it somewhat differently, and it's not that flattering to Jews. My take on what was written is: "If we're going to have alien populations in our midst, we would have been better off having productive non-violent ones." It's a statement of equal opportunity nativism, and what lies beneath it is "we would have been even better off not having any of these foreigners among us at all."

The other alternative reading is "we started a war that decimated our population - so where do people come from to support our economies? We could have had Jews, but no, we killed them, so instead we have Muslims."

I just don't see how he is advocating that there should have been a holocaust of Muslims. But he IS saying that having a hostile Muslim minority instead of a non-hostile (or at least nonviolent) Jewish one is one of the ironies of European history.

I've been trying to write some response in the past 20 minutes, but the damned article just is uncommentable. What, exactly, can you say in response to such ridiculousness?

It would be illogical for the point of this article to be that Europe should’ve exterminated its Muslims instead of its Jews at the time of the Holocaust. Such a course of action was not a historical possibility, so why suggest it? Almost all of (at least western) Europe’s Muslim population is a result of post-WWII immigration. There was no significant Muslim population before then, and certainly nothing comparable to that of European Jews.

Rather, the author seems merely to observe the irony that not so long ago Europe was unjustly intolerant of a peaceful, productive, assimilated minority, while today it is too tolerant of a largely violent, radical minority with no intention of assimilation. And that’s it: no endorsement of genocide, no call for a new Holocaust—just reflection.

I suspect the big “mistake” that the author laments in the last line is not that of a missed opportunity to eliminate the “right” minority at Auschwitz, but that of allowing seemingly unbridled Muslim immigration over the last 50 years, with no apparent bureaucratic consideration of whether the culture of many of these immigrants was actually hostile to the basic tenets of western civilization.

And that’s a legitimate concern.

"... but that of allowing seemingly unbridled Muslim immigration over the last 50 years, with no apparent bureaucratic consideration of whether the culture of many of these immigrants was actually hostile to the basic tenets of western civilization.

"And that’s a legitimate concern."

Eerie, isn't it?

Replacing the word “Muslim” for “Jewish” in my original comment works only if there’s no difference between Weimar Germany’s Eastern European Jews and Europe’s current Muslim population. I think there are big differences, and that those differences can be debated publicly without the whole continent sliding into another Holocaust.

German displeasure at Jewish immigration in the 1930s was fueled by centuries of paranoid racial prejudices with no basis in reality, whereas today’s concerns are informed by an apparent widespread hostility among European Muslims towards western culture and values. After the Danish cartoon row, I don’t take seriously anyone who believes that Europe is exaggerating this problem.

Citizens and their leaders should be allowed to debate immigration policy without precipitating street riots from Muslims on the one hand and constant allusions to the Holocaust on the other.

It’s possible that if Europeans feel their legitimate concerns regarding this issue are not being adequately addressed by their current governments, and if they continue to experience increased violence and further terrorist attacks, then there may be cause to worry about a new generation of leaders who come to power promising security and a solution to the “Muslim problem.”

That would be eerie.

Don, I'm sorry, but on the historical question, you're mostly wrong. You write that "German displeasure at Jewish immigration in the 1930s was fueled by centuries of paranoid racial prejudices with no basis in reality." But I was talking about Jewish immigration from Poland into Weimar Germany before the 1930s. The "Ostjuden" ("Eastern Jews") were seen as "other," as culturally unassimilable, and as a fundamentally criminal element. (This in at least partial contrast to the German Jews--those who had been in Germany for decades if not centuries and who were largely assimilated.) As early as 1920, the incipient Nazi movement was calling for the elimination of the Ostjuden.

Surely this complicates your desire simply to set aside the German example. Doesn't it?

no, Eric, I don't think it changes things because you can't attribute to the author of that article knowledge of that historical detail. And in any event, the Nazi eliminationist project did not exempt the "good" German Jews, so your point sort of refutes itself. Why not just take the point being made by Don - that the article is a reflection on a historical irony - at face value?

Don:

Citizens and their leaders should be allowed to debate immigration policy without precipitating street riots from Muslims on the one hand and constant allusions to the Holocaust on the other.

First off, I think it ironic that you think Europeans have a right to debate immigration policy, but that other Europeans don't have a right to be offended by that debate. The whole free speech thing includes the freedom to say things people disagree with right? And that might include linking European anti-Muslim sentiment in the present with anti-semetic sentiment early, yeah? Am I reading too much into the word "allowed" here?

Secondly, the Holocaust analogy is made in this case by the author. They chose to go there. They chose to write something suggesting that the Holocaust was wrong because Jews were so accomplished, rather than because murdering 6 million people is simply wrong. And when you write something like that, how surprised can you be when people are a bit worried about what you are suggesting?

Eric:

1. I take your response to my initial comment as a stark reminder that, whenever governments or individuals start suggesting individuals be treated differently based on ethnicity or religion, our ears should prick up, causing us to compare today’s arguments and circumstances to those of the period leading up to the Holocaust. I couldn’t agree more.

We obviously disagree on how closely some of today’s arguments and circumstances in Europe resemble those of Weimar Germany. You seem to think they’re pretty similar; I don’t.

2. As to your narrower point about similarities between the experience of Weimar Germany’s Ostjuden and that of today’s European Muslims, you rightly point out that the newly arrived “Eastern Jews” faced a particularly invidious form of suspicion and abuse (from both Germans and assimilated German Jews) before the 1930s. But I don’t believe that this observation contradicts my earlier statement that “German displeasure at Jewish immigration in the 1930s was fueled by centuries of paranoid racial prejudices with no basis in reality.” It seems to me that German displeasure at Jewish immigration—-indeed, existence—-was at all times the result of irrational prejudice, which merely manifested itself in different guises at different times. But I think it’s pretty clear that Germany’s attitude towards and treatment of its 100,000 Ostjuden immigrants differs wildly from how Europe is today handling its 20,000,000 Muslims.

3. I strenuously object to the comparison of the incipient Nazi movement’s call for the “elimination” of the Ostjuden with any suggestion Europe merely reconsider its Muslim immigration policy until there’s more evidence that this vast social experiment is working, of which there seems to be very little right now. That’s a big leap.

Interesting exchanges, though.

Michael:

1. I don’t think my comment implies that Europeans don’t have a right to be offended by their particular country’s immigration debate. How could one’s right to be offended be taken away? One is either offended or not. The issue is how the offense is expressed. I considered writing that citizens and their leaders have a right to debate immigration policy without precipitating VIOLENT street riots (as opposed to nonviolent street riots?) AND THREATS OF BEHEADINGS from Muslims, but in the interest of economy I may have whittled away a little too much. My bad.

2. I also thought about omitting the statement regarding “constant allusions to the Holocaust” because I realize that the author invoked the Holocaust in his essay. But I chose to include the comment as an expression of a broader concern that SOMETIMES the Holocaust is overused as a rhetorical device in debates such as this one, with the adverse effect being to chill what should be a rational and robust discussion about important security matters that, unfortunately, are inextricably linked with religion.

Stuart:
You write that "the Nazi eliminationist project did not exempt the "good" German Jews".

This is a highly controversial point that you are making. Anti-semetic laws in the National Socialist regime did distinguish between "good Jews" and "bad Jews".

One of the most famous accounts of the German-Jewish experience during the Second World War is the diary of Victor Klemperer. Klemperer was able to spend most of war living in Dresden in relative freedom. He was able to do so in part because he had special status as he was married to a non-Jew and was a veteran of the Great War.

I certainly would not say that "good Jews were exempt". All Jews were subject to extreme political oppression and by end of the war the "eliminationist program" had expanded to include everyone of Jewish descent. However, NS law did distinguish between Jews by criteria such as the degree of assimilation and treated them differently on the basis this criteria.

Interesting, because I have wondered about the demographics of this myself - that is, not *all* the European Jews were cultured elite, by any means. Not all the persecuted peasants of Europe had emigrated during the Ellis Island years. By killing off the poorer as well as the richer, and losing the socially-marginal willing to do scut work in Paris and Marseilles and Tubingen, what effect indeed did it have (aside from the overal effect of the war's slaughter on the civilian populations of all of Europe) in impelling Continental Europe to being importing gastarbeitern from outside, and from those countries which they had respectively adjacent borders or colonial era connections with? Kind of like the English and Spanish discovering that they couldn't enslave Native Americans without killing them off, and thus "having" to import Africans to the New World [sic] to do their scut work for them, leading inevitably to this Civil Rights wretchedness. [/conservative]

IOW, the author *seems* to be saying, "Dang, if only we hadn't killed our Jews (and, one presumes, Gypsies, though they are notably not mentioned there) we would have had a better class of serfs and underpaid freedmen to kick around! Why were our grandparents so short-sighted?"

i realy do not understand why our tax money and our livelyhood get injected to the vines of punch of idotes (Muslem=Arabs+Murderer) that are black -mailing us with terror !!!!!