Charles Bybelezer writes @ Jerusalem Post:
In the prevailing climate of political correctness, policies are too
often driven by emotional arguments rather than sober analysis, a
reality currently playing out in the debate over the mass influx into
Europe of migrants from the Middle East and North African (MENA).
While
the issue strikes a deep humanitarian chord, over the past two decades
Europe has failed miserably at integrating these populations.
Nevertheless, the EU is now doubling down on a failed strategy,
promising to take in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people
over the next few years, many of whom are, in actuality, asylum- seekers
– with no intention of returning to their home countries – or economic
migrants.
Yet nobody seems to be asking the question: Is this good for the Jews? The answer is a resounding “no.”
European
Jewry is currently enduring the most intense wave of anti-Semitism to
sweep the continent since World War II, and the cold, hard truth is
that Muslim immigrants and their poorly-assimilated offspring are
fueling it. [...]
It is tragic,
then, that
Jewish leaders in Europe are not raising the alarm.
To the
contrary, many are advocating on behalf of those who are liable to hurt
their communities.
Take the greatly respected former chief
rabbi of Britain, Jonathan Sacks, who last week penned a moving albeit
short-sighted article in support of the EU’s decision to absorb
hundreds of thousands of additional people.
“Now is a unique
opportunity to show that the ideals for which the European Union and
other international bodies such as the United Nations were formed are
still compelling, compassionate and humane,” Sacks contended.[...]
Another
common rationalization employed by Sacks invokes the lead-up to the
Holocaust. “One of the dark moments in [world] history occurred in July
1938,” he writes, “when representatives of 32 countries gathered in the
French spa town of Evian to discuss the disaster that everyone knew
was about to overtake the Jews of Europe wherever Hitler’s Germany held
sway.... Yet country after country shut its doors.”
The flaw in
this argument is glaring; namely, that there is no concerted genocide
taking place in Syria, Iraq or Libya, but rather Sunni-Shi’ite proxy
wars. Some minority populations are, in fact, being systematically
targeted – such as the Yazidis, for example – but they are not primary
among the young, single and mainly Muslim migrants currently being
absorbed into Europe (according to the UN’s refugee agency [UNHCR],
70%
of the nearly 450,000 immigrants that arrived by sea to Europe this
year are men, compared to just 13% who are women and 18% children).
This
is why
comparisons to the Holocaust are invariably blanketed by
emotional fluff – “wars that cannot be won by weapons can sometimes be
won by the sheer power of acts of humanitarian generosity,” according
to Sacks. But taking in millions of migrants will not end the war in
Syria or anywhere else; by contrast, it will simply import the root
causes – Islamic fundamentalism and tribalism – to the West. (A
representative example is the Greek island of Kos, where thousands of
migrants have caused utter chaos for local residents, with violent riots
erupting between competing ethnic groups). [...]
Just
days before Sacks published his article encouraging more immigration
to the UK, four Jewish males were attacked at a train station in
Manchester, England, one teen sustaining a fractured skull. This is but
one example of the many violent anti-Semitic attacks already occurring
with alarming frequency throughout Europe, and taking in more people
from MENA countries will only add to the crisis.
The remaining
question is whether Jewish leaders will take ownership now, or feign
surprise and outrage the next time a European Jew is severely beaten –
or worse – by someone they advocated on behalf of.
The writer s a correspondent for i24news, an international network broadcasting out of Israel.
