The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
Immigration, Islam, and Europe's Jews
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Despite my usual agreement with Sam Goldman on historical questions, I beg to differ with him in his judgments about what kind of alliances European Jews should be making in view of the anti-Jewish sentiments that is now apparent among many Muslim immigrants. In my view, Jews would do best supporting those parties, typically on the right, which favor limiting Muslim immigration into Europe. Jews should also unconditionally oppose attempts by the European Left to allow the introduction of Sharia Law into European society, under the guise of religious freedom. It is also in the interest of Jews here and in Europe to reciprocate the good will being offered by traditional Christians. Jewish communities, particularly in Europe, should give up their atavistic prejudices against “goyim” masquerading as a commitment to total, state-enforced secularism (of course except for non-Christians). Christians are by far the best allies Jews can find, as opposed to the multicultural Left that has unleashed the immigration problem and are working knowingly or unknowingly toward the further Islamicization of Europe and toward the elimination of what remains of a Western Christian civilization.

Sam’s eagerness to ascribe anti-circumcision and anti-Jewish ritual slaughtering laws to rightwing anti-Muslim groups, which supposedly disdain Jews as well as Muslims, is misdirected energy. The laws he criticizes have considerable support on the left. Liberal Democrats are now introducing an anti-circumcision law in San Francisco, and those engaged in this act have absolutely no interest in persecuting Muslims. The proposals to ban ritual slaughtering in Sweden came from the country’s very leftist socialist party; and the anti-circumcision law in Germany resonates strongly with the socially radical Greens and the Party of German Socialists. Although the Nazi Party once favored such legislation, at least partly for anti-Semitic reasons, for several generations it has been the European Left that has been most strenuously opposed to such “inhumane” practices as Jewish ritual slaughtering and circumcising infants. There is nothing new about the Left’s association with these views. They were expressing them in the 1950s and 1960s, before Muslims entered Europe in large numbers.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: European Right, Islam 
Hide 18 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Jack says:

    The European left is deeply torn about infant circumcision and ritual slaughter. On the one hand, these represent clear-cut violations of human rights and animal rights, and the contemporary European left is all about such rights. On the other hand, in Europe both are almost exclusively practiced by religious and ethnic minorities, and multiculturalism is at least as important for the left as human and animal rights.

    The Finnish Green party, for example, recently issued a declaration that the practice of infant circumcision must be phased out. On the other, during the Green party conference the delegates rejected the proposal that the party should actively seek to outlaw infant circumcision.

  2. Patrick says:

    You could just as easily argue that flooding Europe with Muslims would erode the electoral power needed to pass anti-circumcision or anti-animal slaughter legislation. In that case, the Jews ought to be strongly in favor of a tidal of immigrants.

    What a silly debate.

  3. djf says:

    In addition to the points made by Prof. Gottfried, it should be noted that there is no contradiction between halting or reversing the inflow of Muslims immigrants, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, at the same time maintaining freedom of religion (meaning freedom of voluntary religious observance and association) for all residents of a country, including Muslims.

  4. Bob Jones says:

    It should also be noted that most of those complaining about “rampant” Muslim immigration, especially in this country, are often playing fast and loose with demographics, and tend to conflate many different countries into some sort of “Super Europe”.

    Those countries that have non-native demographic issues are also the same countries that pursue colonial empires and only reluctantly surrendered their colonies in the last half century or so. As part of that they granted special immigration privileges to their former colonial subjects. Those abuses are coming home to roost. However, those European nations that did not engage in the building of large colonial empires, do not have the same challenges, and in fact often practice restrictive immigration, especially for non-European (citizens only) foreigners. This is certainly the case with Germany. It should also be noted that those non-colonial countries Muslin immigrants are predominantly Turks, who after several generations in their own secular Republic are equally uninterested in Sharia, or any of the other Salafist/Islamist projects.

    Finally, I also think this discussion about “banning” circumcision is being blown way out of proportion to the actual conversation occurring on the subject in Europe – especially in Finnland or Germany. IN particular in Germany the issue rest on a criminal prosecution of Criminal Assault and Child endangerment, which derived from a botched circumcision and the desire of the child’s parents to see the perpetrator punished for the damage he caused. It is not a new law, or anything of the sort. It is also highly doubtful that any member of the Bundestag would even bring such a law to the floor of Parliament for consideration.

    However, as others have noted, I would like to see some discussion on the maltreatment that Christians suffer at the hands of Isreali authorities, but I guess we will have to read the European papers to learn of that.

  5. Jack says:

    Those countries that have non-native demographic issues are also the same countries that pursue colonial empires and only reluctantly surrendered their colonies in the last half century or so.

    Like Sweden and Norway?

    Finally, I also think this discussion about “banning” circumcision is being blown way out of proportion to the actual conversation occurring on the subject in Europe – especially in Finnland

    In Finland, the issue is legally somewhat unclear. There is nothing in the legislation about circumcision, so in principle any circumcision on a child could be regarded as aggravated assault. However, there’s a 2008 Supreme Court ruling according to which circumcision on a child is legal under certain conditions. Still, there’s an ongoing case where a child’s father and a doctor are accused of aggravated assault for circumcising an infant boy without the mother’s consent.

    The True Finns Party recently introduced a bill to the Parliament on criminalizing circumcision on children. It’s not going to become law though.

  6. M_Young says:

    “Those countries that have non-native demographic issues are also the same countries that pursue colonial empires and only reluctantly surrendered their colonies in the last half century or so.

    Like Sweden and Norway?”

    Indeed. Not to mention the huge contingents of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands and Belgium. Last I checked, neither country had colonized either place.

    Further, since peoples like the Algerians wanted, and eventually got, independence, why should they have some special moral claim to the right to immigrate to the former metropole? Further, the vast majority of the people in former colonies like India, Pakistan, or Congo were born after independence was achieved.

    Europeans gave up their colonies, now it is time to stand up to reverse colonization.

  7. Robert says:

    Jack asks: “Like Sweden and Norway?”

    The world-historical depravity of Sweden as running-dog imperialist and colonial oppressor … another “crime” which we Occidentals can start flagellating ourselves about.

  8. Same question as to Samuel Goldman: Are the party politics in all the European states so similar that you can make a single categorical judgment? I’d think there’d be some right-wing parties you’d want to support against the alternatives and some that you wouldn’t want to support against their alternatives.

  9. Most painful figure of speech in a comment: “The European left is deeply torn about infant circumcision and ritual slaughter.”

  10. TomB says:

    Aaron in Israel wrote:

    “I’d think there’d be some right-wing parties you’d want to support against the alternatives and some that you wouldn’t want to support against their alternatives.”

    Right, and that gets to larger issue that inheres in both Sam Goldman’s piece and Professor Gottfried’s, and that is not just approvingly viewing but also encouraging jews to vote as a group essentially. Despite even, as Aaron notes, that their individual interests might be fragmented.

    Not that I’ve seen Sam Goldman or Professor Gottfried do this, but you can’t on the one hand go urging and then approving that “jews” very strongly act as some discrete group or tribe, putting its group or tribal interests ahead of others, and then complain bitterly of anti-semitism when people observe that’s the case.

    Or, in other words, why not urge jews to vote or support or denounce people and things no different than we want to see everyone else encouraged, essentially? As per their own individual interests?

    The group or tribal approach, it seems to me, is the modern Democratic one, dividing us up into tribes, setting us against each other, playing the numbers, but then ritualistically accompanied by great crocodile tears because we don’t all feel that we are each others’ keepers particularly.

    Of course in Europe it’s a much more understandable thing given the insane and relatively recent *treatment* of jews as some monolithic entity, so that their individual interests were so common.

    But it’s a little disconcerting here in the U.S. for instance to see jews as a group so commonly and vociferously be supporters of open border and amnesty policies, conducted with absolute vehemence against any doubters in same, when as I noted in Sam Goldman’s piece in Israel they don’t have “illegal immigrants” even much less “undocumented individuals,” but instead “infiltrators” that are rounding up into camps for wholesale deportment.

    Like I said, how do you square the idea that it’s vile for everyone else to be concerned about their demographic/cultural makeup and nature, but then abssddsdddddolutely okay and virtuous for you and your tribe, and indeed for you and your tribe to insist on damn near *absolute* ethno-racial purity?

    The “chicken/egg” question obviously raises its head, with there no doubt being some merit to the understanding that to some extent jewish group/tribal behavior is the result of anti-jewish treatment, but regardless it don’t help to behave as a group/tribe if you don’t want to be perceived as such.

  11. Anonymous • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Middle East and North African Immigrants are in Europe by design, from a plan decades ago to merge the economies of the greater Mediterainean , called EUROMED prominently featured on the EU website. And stopping all immigration wont change differential birth rates, as in North America and Oceania, for whatever reasons, Europeans are a shrinking percentage of the world population, and nothing will change that.

    The Jewish-Evangelical axis of cooperation is unraveling with numerous anti Christian hate, desecration, and violence incidendts within Israel by extremist settlers. This alliance will not grow, but weaken substantially, and most likely reverse, and awareness of israeli apartheid targeting both Christians and Muslims becomes more widely known.

    The recent anti-Muslim film violence it appears was incited by an unknown cabal interested in formenting Christian-Muslim violence in Egypt and elsewhere, at least according to speculations by former National Security Advisor Zbigniew brezinski, quoted here

    —-

    Here is Zbigniew Brezinski, former national security advisor, discussing the “Innocence of Muslims” video and its possible origins. Money quote:

    “There is some indication that there was a conspiracy involved here. The people who produced the film remain anonymous. Who paid for it? How was financed it? Why are they keeping quiet about it. What was the intent? Purely to amuse?”

    He then speculates that there might be “evil forces at work trying to provoke violence between us” and the Muslim world.

    My take: earlier Zbig avers that the administration is in the dark about this, but I wonder: the only known individual associated with the “film,” a thrice-convicted felon with numerous names and identities, has been taken into custody because of an alleged parole violation. He is now safely ensconced in a California prison, where he – and his story – are likely to stay for the next two years, long enough for the whole thing to die down and the trail to the real makers of “Innocence” to go very cold. My guess is that this is just the way the US government wants it – because revealing the “evil forces” behind what was obviously a planned provocation could be politically explosive.

    The elements that combined to create this toxic cinematic cocktail couldn’t be more suspicious: A “producer” with dozens of aliases, and a long criminal history, who suddenly goes into the movie business a month after getting out of jail: a “director” who denies any connection to the movie: a Christian propaganda outlet that “loaned” its facilities out to make the movie now claiming to have been deceived, along with the actors who had words put into their mouths without their knowledge or consent. Someone went to a great deal of trouble to cover their tracks.

    An elaborate prank – or a covert operation?

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/04/getting-away-with-murder-2/

  12. VikingLS says:

    I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is correct that the Christian west really needs to be approaching the Muslim population of Europe as a missionary field. The Christians most willing and able to do this are evangellicals who happen to be pretty pro-Jewish.

  13. This idea that muslim immigrants will lead Europe into a situation where sharia law is introduced is silly. In Sweden, for instance, a great part of the immigrants who came here from countries such as Iran are not very interested in religion at all.

    What really goes to show that there are not very strong religious sentiments among the immigrants from the middle east is the problem for these people to raise funds for building mosques. From time to time this issue is raised in Sweden and people go out to demonstrate against building a mosque in some swedish city. Usually they complain about the localisation of the particular building and so on.

    But what has happend several times is that altough they have a permit to build the mosque they lack the financial means to do so. If the claim was correct that most people immigrating to Sweden from the middle east are religious fanatics thinking 24/7, how can this be?

    I think, truly, the large part of immigrants of middle eastern extraction living in Sweden care less about religion than most people think. Ive heard that the number of muslims living in Sweden today is 400 000. If this is true and if it is true that most harbour strong religious feeling, why this lack of funding for building mosques?

    The only mosque I know that has been built in Sweden in the last few years where built in Gothenburg (Sweden second largest city). Where did the funds come from? From what i gathered it was funded by Saudi’s. I think it is fair to question that Saudi Arabia, a theocratic and undemocratic society, funds the building of a mosque in Sweden. This is a different topic though.

    If a demograpic that makes up 400 000 of the swedish population on their own are not capable, really not willing, to fund the construction of mosques that makes me question the “Green Scare” going on right now.

    This whole idea about Europe turning into Eurabia I think is completly false. I think that this whole idea that western europes institutions and rule of law will be replaced with sharia law is false. And it reveals a lack of trust in the ideas of liberty and individual rights. I think this ideas and our culture is attractive for many people moving in to europe. And I belive that as time moves on and we see third-generation immigrants stemming from the middle east and, sometimes being muslims, they will on the whole have moderate religious practises.

    One anecdotal example is that I for one have been drinking wine with a guy explicitly stating that he is a muslim. When I asked him about the ban on alcohole in the Kuran he gave me an answer revealing what the future of islam in europe may look like. His answer was that he interpreted this ban to be really directed against drinking alcohole in such large amounts that you got drunk. So his way of dealing with this “clash of cultures” was to only drink very moderate amounts of alcohole.

    My five cents about this issue…

  14. Some propositions have been made in Sweden that I think may produce a positive outcome.

    It has been sugested that one or a few universities in Sweden should offer a degree programe for people who seeks a “career” as imams. The proposition is that this education would be the muslim equvilant to that taken by christians wanting to become priests. Off course no one becomes a priest in Sweden simply by taking part in an educational program. But to be ordained as a priest by the Swedish church you need to have a university degree in theology.

    I belive that this could be a way of fostering a more moderate form of islamic teaching by imams in Sweden. Today the situation seems to be that people wanting to become imams study abroad in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. So I think a swedish degree program in islamology could be a cure for radcial islamism being spread in Europe.

    In Turkey where the state has a complex relationship towards the dominant religion of Islam, the state has tried to interfer with religion in some ways to moderate its forms. I think Turkey in some ways are going to far but also that it was necassary to establish the republic that now is to interfer in some ways.

    State interference in religious practises are not unknown and alien to European culture. In Sweden for long the only church being tolerated was the Swedish Chrch which was one, altought in some ways indipendent, arm of the state. The seperation between state and church in Sweden only occured in the year 2000, since when the Swedish church is no longer recognised as being a state church.

    I belive that if this threat off islamisation is real it could be dealt with. The nation states interfer with religious affairs by financing and building state controlled Mosques. This would not be contrary to european values and culture. For a long time the state where in control off many churches and to some extent still is.

    Americans, though, don´t think this is an adequate way of dealing with the issue. But that is only because americans have a different culture and could never except the idea of the state interfering with religion in a direct manner like this. European Kings have done so in the past though and I see no problem with democratically elected governments doing so if the need arrises…

  15. chipotle says:

    Gottfried and Goldman are both brilliant minds but this debate is unworthy of them.

    To ask, “how should European Jews align themselves politically?” is like asking “What should the Libertarian Party do in the first 100 days after winning the Presidency?”

    The entire 1000-year-old culture of European Jewry was effectively destroyed by Hitler even if he didn’t kill every last human being.

  16. TomB, Actually I wasn’t criticizing the idea that Jews as Jews should vote a certain way; I’m not saying anything about that one way or the other. I’m saying that maybe it’s in the interest of Jews to vote one way in some European states and other ways in other Europeans states.

    Also, you’re absolutely wrong about Jews as a group supporting mass immigration. A large majority (I think about two-to-one or larger) of American Jews believes that immigration should be reduced. Even on the strict Arizona law, Jews were split about 50-50 at the time.

  17. TomB says:

    Aaron in Israel wrote:

    “Actually I wasn’t criticizing the idea that Jews as Jews should vote a certain way….”

    No but that was the *effect* of what you wrote, which I think is smart.

    (Recognizing that you might not, but hoping that you might be brought around by indeed the very smartness that can be seen in interpreting you otherwise.)

    As to jews supporting mass immigration I would hope that the contemporary situation is more as your stats suggest, with jews essentially not having any block or tribal approach. All I know is in the past that wasn’t the case here, and one can still perceive a pretty damn big sense here of prominent jewish organizations and individuals being prominent in the more “open borders” side of the argument. And not doing so via holding back on the rhetorical level either.

    E.g., Abe Foxman of the ADL, speaking in 2010 of Arizona’s then new law, talking about “hate, fear and xenophobia” being behind same, and linking it to “racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other extremists.”

    And likewise the ADL was in the forefront of praising President Obama’s recent (and unbelievably constitution-defying) pronouncement that he simply wasn’t going to be prosecuting much less deporting a whole class of (younger) illegal immigrants.

    As were a number of other major American jewish organizations.

    Or one might go to Haaretz and look up that fairly recent article by Daniel Sieradski very harshly indeed saying that the major American jewish organizations were being hypocritical on immigration. (I.e., in favor of being rather if not totally open here, while not saying much if anything about Israel’s very much more closed sympathies towards its non-jewish immigrants.)

    You got any contrary statements or sentiments uttered by the representatives of any equally large American jewish organizations and I’d love to hear of ’em.

  18. Jr says:

    The idea that President Obama has trashed the Constitution by not enforcing an immigration law is ludicrous. Many laws are not enforced (on purpose), including laws prohiting adultery and oral sex. These laws are–by common consent–ignored. Is TomB proposing that these are impeachable offenses for the officials involved–or merely saying he isn’t happy?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS