Jews, Israel and the refugee crisis
 |
| Deborah Lipstadt established her reputation on the back of the libel action that Irving brought. However she has more in common with him than she realises |
Deborah Lipstadt is
one of the many holocaust historians that abound these days, most of mediocre
quality. She has only one claim to
fame. The fact that David Irving, the
neo-Nazi revisionist historian sued Penguin Books and herself on account of a
book she wrote, Denying the Holocaust
– The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory“, accusing him of being a
Nazi apologist and an admirer of Hitler and that he had resorted to the
distortion of facts and to the manipulation of documents in support of his
contention that the Holocaust did not take place. He lost the libel action comprehensively. Lipstadt played no part in the trial and
genuine historians of the holocaust such as Richard Evans were hired as expert witnesses.
 |
| A genuinely stupid American professor of holocaust studies |
the case can read the 300+ page verdict by Mr Justice Grey.
any serious and genuine historian of the holocaust that they had imbibed and
taken to heart the lessons of the subject they wrote about. One of those lessons is the refusal of the British
and American governments to take in all but a few Jewish refugees. This refusal and the naked racist hostility of
the said governments inextricably led to more deaths. Of course these governments were aided by the
Zionist movement, which supported their refusal to take in Jewish refugees. One would assume that anyone who didn’t treat
the holocaust as simply a field in which to gain an academic title and a living
would have taken the issue of racism and refugees seriously.
Lipstadt because she is, apart from being a junk historian, a Zionist. Hence she could write, in an article 4Reasons We Should Think Before Acting Rashly on Migrant Crisis in the Jewish Forward, 9
September 2015 that ‘I find myself almost agreeing with Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision not to accept any refugees. Israel has
given extensive medical aid to Syrians caught in the bloody civil war. Many of
them, while grateful, hide the fact that Israel helped them, and they do so
because of the open hostility Syria’s citizens feel toward Israel.’
 |
| Refugees making it to land |
not true. Israel has given extensive
medical aid to the Islamist fighters of al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda organisation in
Syria and other assorted Islamist groups, including Isis. It has not given aid to ordinary
Syrians. But even if it had, does that
justify the refusal to admit even one single Syrian refugee? The grounds for Netanyahu’s refusal are that
it would dilute Israel’s Jewish demographic majority. In other words the same type of racism that
pertained in Europe in the 1930’s and 1940’s.
are told that ‘As a student of Jewish history, I find the image of suffering
innocents desperate for refuge stinging. Years ago I began my exploration into
the Holocaust by studying the American response. I was appalled by the
deep-seated hostility American officials and bureaucrats showed toward Jewish
immigrants. They erected, in the words of historian David Wyman, “paper walls”
to keep out the foreigners. Jews were turned away simply and solely because
they were Jews, even when that meant they would be sent to concentration camps.’ And? ‘Everywhere
I go, this plagues people. I have listened to friends and acquaintances, from
the well informed to those who intentionally avoid the news — whether at my
gym, at dinner tables or in departmental meetings — ask: “What do I do to
help?” Deeply caring people declare, “The failure to help them is a reflection
on the failure of Western society.”
this prime example of a Jewish Zionist racist declares that ‘I have found
myself remaining strangely and uncharacteristically silent.’ Certainly silence from Lipstadt is
uncharaceristic. As the saying goes, empty
vessels make the most noise.
was ‘beset by four sets of unanswered questions that require nuanced responses.’ Yet she boldly declares, in the face of this
human catastrophe, that ‘We need to go beyond the emotional response to
desperate images and grapple with the social, political and moral implications
inherent in our response.’ And what
might they be?
- Are these migrants fleeing for their lives, or
are they trying to find a better economic and social future for their
families?
less distinguished than the ‘Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and
Holocaust Studies at Emory University’ might grasp that you can both flee
for your life and seek a better life at the same time. Strange that a Holocaust professor is unable
to understand this. She admits her parents
came to America in search of a better economic future but they were ‘immigrants
who moved here as part of an articulated immigration process; they did not
uproot themselves and make their way across the border.’
dim-witted Lipstadt seems incapable of appreciating that perhaps there is an
absence of a well articulated immigration process in Syria so people just
flee. They do not merely uproot
themselves but are uprooted and have no choice but to cross borders.
next concern, one typical of the racist Zionist is ‘How will this influx of
people change the face of Europe? Will they prove willing to be integrated into
European society?’ Strange this was
exactly the same type of objection that Jews faced when they escaped from
Czarist Russian pogroms and later Nazi pogroms.
Would they integrate. Because
Lipstadt deeply cares about ‘the extent to which these new immigrants will
commit to democratic principles and to the messiness of a democracy.’ Ah yes.
They were the victims of dictatorship.
That means they just must love being dictated to or maybe they wish to
become dictators. It’s hard to
understand all these things in the land of the free.
demonstrating what an insightful professor and thinker she is, Lipstadt adds ‘Do they understand that the freedoms of speech and expression have no “but”
associated with them?’ because of course they are addicted to dictatorships or
they are Muslims, who as we know, unlike Christians or Israeli Jews, just hate
freedom of speech. And equally pertinent
‘Will an influx lead to a powerful right-wing nationalist backlash?’ A good reason certainly to keep them out as
the Jews used to find out.
course this commitment to free speech doesn’t extend to her many fellow Zionists
that this blog documents who devote their time and energy to suppressing Palestinian
free speech. But no doubt that is
different.
then another Zionist talking point. ‘why,
for that matter, have so many Muslim countries shut their doors to them?’ While conceding
that ‘huge numbers of those fleeing Syria have found refuge in Lebanon, Jordan
and Turkey’, what of the oil-rich Gulf States? They have welcomed none.’ Indeed that is true but how is it
relevant? Does the refusal of one state
to live up to humanitarian ideals justify other states doing the same? Or is this just another racist way of saying
that Muslims themselves don’t care.
fact the answer is easier still. Because
the Gulf States are the creations of western imperialism, wholly artificial
lines in the sand, whose only purpose is
to separate the oil of the Middle East from the peoples of the Middle East,
they fear a growth in population that might turn on them. The dictators that rule these states
certainly don’t want an influx of Syrian refugees.
then we come to the crunch question. ‘What
about Israel?’ In what she describes as ‘a
rare personal turn’ Lipstadt says that she finds herself ‘almost agreeing with
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision not to accept any refugees.’
the use of the weasel word ‘almost’. She
can’t quite back up Netanyahu’s refusal, based as it is on an explicitly racist
refusal to countenance the dilution of Israel’s Jewish majority.
asks how is Israel to open its doors to Syrian refugees? Presumably she is trying to prove she is even
more stupid than I have given her credit for.
does Israel check fleeing crowds for associations with extremist groups bent on
Israel’s harm?’ This was the reason Jewish
refugees weren’t accepted in the second world war. They might include Nazi agents.
she wonders whether it might have been possible to ‘symbolically accept a few
thousand who were properly and thoroughly vetted?’ Wouldn’t this send a message about Israel’s
commitment to Jewish values? Sorry
Deborah. Jewish values today aren’t Netanyahu’s
main concern.
in a final flourish, the troubled Lipstadt, because she knows what she sounds
like, accepts that ‘If you detect ambivalence and struggle in my questions, you
are right. I, like many of you, am trying to discern what is happening here.
Even as I do, I wonder whether my compassion has been derailed by my skepticism
or my logic has been derailed by my compassion.;
it is neither Deborah. You are just a
common and garden racist who dresses up her bigotry and callousness with academic
cliches and the title of a Holocaust Professor.
rest assured that ‘even as I donate to a refugee assistance fund I am asking
these questions.’ So she may not want to
admit any refugees but she will toss the odd dime into the collective pot. Thus assuaging what passes for her
conscience. After all, despite the fact
that ‘people are drowning and babies are suffering… we cannot afford to respond
without also thinking about the broader implications of our actions.’
that is why Deborah Lipstadt is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History
and Holocaust Studies at Emory University.
4 Reasons We Should Think Before Acting Rashly on Migrant Crisis
watched the unfolding refugee crisis with horror. Who could not be moved by the
sight of families risking their children’s lives in rickety boats and on rafts
designed for leisure and not for escape routes on rough waters?
The picture of little Aylan Kurdi in blue shorts and red shirt dead on the
beach left us all speechless.
As a student of Jewish history, I find the image of suffering innocents
desperate for refuge stinging. Years ago I began my exploration into the
Holocaust by studying the American response. I was appalled by the deep-seated
hostility American officials and bureaucrats showed toward Jewish immigrants.
They erected, in the words of historian David Wyman, “paper walls” to keep out
the foreigners. Jews were turned away simply and solely because they were Jews,
even when that meant they would be sent to concentration camps. Seeing Aylan’s
lifeless body washed up on a beach, who among us does not wonder: Is history
repeating itself?
Everywhere I go, this plagues people. I have listened to friends and
acquaintances, from the well informed to those who intentionally avoid the news
— whether at my gym, at dinner tables or in departmental meetings — ask: “What
do I do to help?” Deeply caring people declare, “The failure to help them is a
reflection on the failure of Western society.” I have found myself remaining
strangely and uncharacteristically silent.
I am beset by four sets of unanswered questions that require nuanced
responses. For some, the very thought of hesitating to act while working
through questions in the face of traumatized children is to be hard hearted.
Act now, they say, and question later. Yet the decisions that are being made
now have tremendous long-term implications. With deep and abiding respect for
the dead, there is still much to be learned. We need to go beyond the emotional
response to desperate images and grapple with the social, political and moral
implications inherent in our response.
- Are these migrants fleeing for their lives, or are they trying
to find a better economic and social future for their families? Some are
coming because of intolerable and swiftly deteriorating security
conditions; others may well see a strategic opening. We must be vigilant
about humanitarian issues and more wary of an unquestioning open-door
policy.
I say this well aware of the fact that both my parents came to this country
in search of a better economic future. But they were immigrants who moved here
as part of an articulated immigration process; they did not uproot themselves
and make their way across the border.
Maybe we have to differentiate between those who are fleeing a poor country
and those who are fleeing a war zone like Syria.
- How will this influx of people change the face of Europe? Will
they prove willing to be integrated into European society? And conversely,
is Europe willing to do what is necessary to integrate them?
I do not care if they do not become aficionados of European art and culture.
That is not sacrosanct. What I care deeply about is the extent to which these
new immigrants will commit to democratic principles and to the messiness of a
democracy.
Will they prove able to accept that democracy entails the willingness to
have one’s most basic belief challenged? Do they understand that the freedoms
of speech and expression have no “but” associated with them? Will an influx
lead to a powerful right-wing nationalist backlash? And if so, how can that be
addressed and prevented?
- And why, for that matter, have so many Muslim countries shut
their doors to them? While huge numbers of those fleeing Syria have found
refuge in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey, what of the oil-rich Gulf States?
They have welcomed none.
Muslims are asking the same question.
- What about Israel? In a rare personal turn, I find myself
almost agreeing with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision not to
accept any refugees. Israel has given extensive medical aid to Syrians
caught in the bloody civil war. Many of them, while grateful, hide the
fact that Israel helped them, and they do so because of the open hostility
Syria’s citizens feel toward Israel.
How, then, is Israel to open its doors to Syrian refugees? How does Israel
check fleeing crowds for associations with extremist groups bent on Israel’s
harm? Yet might it not have been possible to symbolically accept a few thousand
who were properly and thoroughly vetted? Wouldn’t this send a message about
Israel’s commitment to Jewish values?
If you detect ambivalence and struggle in my questions, you are right. I,
like many of you, am trying to discern what is happening here. Even as I do, I
wonder whether my compassion has been derailed by my skepticism or my logic has
been derailed by my compassion.
Nonetheless, even as I donate to a refugee assistance fund I am asking these
questions. When people are drowning and babies are suffering, the time to
deliberate and search for answers may well be a luxury. I understand. However,
we cannot afford to respond without also thinking about the broader
implications of our actions.
Deborah Lipstadt is the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and
Holocaust Studies at Emory University, and a contributing editor at the
Forward.
How Jewish Skepticism on Refugees Boils Down to Double Standards
September 2015
Lipstadt, a prominent and respected Holocaust Studies professor who often
provides commentary for leading radio and television magazine programs, writes in the Forward that she believes we should think carefully before we
indulge a rash and emotional response toward migrants and refugees. She says
she has four questions about the current migration crisis that require nuanced
responses. But there is a difficulty here, because her questions are not
nuanced.
take a look at what’s worrying her.
What if these migrants are not fleeing for their lives but looking for “a
strategic opening” to secure a “better economic and social future for their
families”?
great wave of Jews from Eastern Europe that came over in steerage in the 1880s,
1890s and first decade of the 20th century did not come with passports. They
did not speak English. They were economic migrants — pogroms were not the main
push factor, as prominent Jewish historians like Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi have
shown in their research. They immigrated under America’s open door policy. And
they did not know from democracy. A few of them became mobsters, but the vast
majority became productive and proud citizens within one generation.
acknowledges that her own parents immigrated for economic reasons. But, she
says, they came as “part of an articulated immigration process.”
exactly the point, though: There is no articulated immigration process for the
people currently risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean on overcrowded
rubber rafts, or facing down hostile security forces in Europe. Does that mean
we should do nothing?
might also point out that a person who undertakes a harrowing, life-threatening
journey to a new country, weighed down by children and babies, is by definition
desperate. War causes poverty. Poverty leads to starvation and starvation leads
to death, which means that a person fleeing poverty is indeed fleeing for his
life. But the bottom line is that every human being has the right to live in a
place that is safe and allows them to earn enough for food, shelter and
clothing.
Can Europe absorb the refugees and can the refugees adjust to life in Europe?
interesting question. Europe is now looking at about 350,000 mostly Middle
Eastern refugees to resettle. They comprise a minute fraction of the E.U.’s
population of 503 million people. For comparison, there are 4 million Syrian
refugees currently spread out between Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, none of which
are rich countries.
the establishment of the E.U. and the end of the Cold War, millions of
Europeans have migrated around the continent — many of them born and raised in
countries that have no tradition of democracy. But no one is asking if the
78,000 Poles living in Sweden or the 79,000 Hungarians living in England can
adapt to the values of their new country. Perhaps this question is asked more
frequently of brown people in general and of Muslims specifically.
Why aren’t the rich Gulf States taking in refugees from Syria?
should, of course. But they are not, and their reasons for failing to do so are
not at all flattering.
the point of Lipstadt’s question is unclear. Are we going to suspend help and
sympathy for some Arabs because other Arabs refuse to come to their aid? Since
when is “Hey, they’re much worse than us” a sound basis for foreign policy?
What about Israel?
the last section of her article, Lipstadt responds to those who say Israel
should take in a few Syrian refugees. Not a good idea, she thinks. But there is
a logical gap in her argument. She first posits that Israel has no way to vet
refugees for security risks, imagining crowds of asylum seekers breaking
through the border. This ignores the fact that there’s no physical way for
Syrian refugees to enter Israel — certainly not en masse. The borders are
sealed and very well protected by the army.
also argues that Israel has already been sufficiently generous by offering
medical treatment to wounded Syrians who accepted it but won’t talk about it
because their fellow Syrians hate the state that provided it. That’s just not
an accurate reading of the Middle Eastern political climate. Anti-Israel
sentiment is a populist issue that is exploited by various groups for political
gain, but that does not mean that Syrians are waiting for an opportunity to
attack Israel. Obviously, they have much more pressing concerns right now than
an old political grudge that long ago lost its power to animate the masses in
the Middle East.
subtext of Lipstadt’s concerns seems to be that if Europe accepts refugees from
Syria, it will change. Given the images of death and desperation we have seen
in recent years and months, indulging in this concern seems quite cruel. I
don’t think anyone would retroactively ask for nuance in judging those who once
turned away desperate Jews during the Holocaust, consigning them to genocide,
because they were not Christian and might not fit in.
