LINK:
* ‘Long live Viktor Orbán!’ I mumble under my breath, for fear of being lynched if I am suspected of racism and Islamophobia.
Syrian and Afghan refugees on and around a dinghy that deflated just before reaching Lesbos
By Benny Ziffer
Published 13:19 14.09.15
I must confess that, try as I might, I could not bring myself to pity the Syrian refugees who were seen streaming across the roads of Europe to Austria and Germany last week. Not even the photograph of the 3-year-old boy washed up on the shore in Bodrum, Turkey – after the boat in which his parents had hoped to reach Greece sank – made a difference. Why can’t I feel empathy with the suffering, like everyone else?
I’ve no doubt I have lost the ability for compassion as a direct result of the French education I received. Was it the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said that compassion is an extension of our egotism? I recall “Is compassion moral?” being one of the most common questions on the French matriculation exam in philosophy. The student is expected to answer that compassion is largely no more than the instinct for convenience, that it frequently has no connection to morality, and that rational people must avoid the pitfall of their convenience instinct.
“You would speak differently if the toddler who drowned was your son or grandson,” people will say, angrily. Those are the people who believe that compassion is obvious in a situation like the one that has emerged before our very eyes, with thousands of people fleeing for their lives from the Middle East to Europe. And it is exactly this argument that closes me off even more from compassion, because that’s an argument which disguises itself as logical but is entirely based on the egotistical instinct.
Moreover, the shock aroused by the photograph of the drowned boy also proved how capricious pity is; what about the thousands of refugees from Africa whose boats capsized in the Mediterranean and whose bodies were pulled from the sea on the shores of Spain and Italy? Why don’t they engender such empathy?
This capriciousness scares me because, on the one hand, we hear endlessly about the discomfiture of Europeans in light of the migration of the poor of the world in their direction. And on the other, we see Germany’s chancellor making a gesture of grandiose generosity – that her country will shelter thousands of refugees from Syria. And we see Germans applauding as the convoys of refugees enter Frankfurt. Where is the logic?
Readers will forgive me if I confess that in this world, in which people have lost logic and wisdom, I have no choice but to rely on those currently deemed the most evil members of the human race. First and foremost among them is Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who didn’t fall prey to the fashion of pity and declared, in no uncertain terms, that the convoys fleeing from the Middle East are unwelcome in his country.
It is absolutely clear to me that the Hungarian prime minister is nationalist and right wing, and thumbs his nose at what is being said about him and his country. As opposed to Germany, which is more concerned about its image than anything else, he doesn’t care when people say his cynical and compassionless stand on the refugees – he also claims they are only pretending to be refugees – shows his country in an inhumane light. To my mind, this should be appreciated, since he is revealed as a person who understands the extent of the damage wrought in this world by postmodern illusions, which have accustomed us to deny the essence and relate only to image and the way things look.
Orbán’s logic is that Europe has amassed bitter experience with the Muslim population multiplying there and taking advantage of Western tolerance to undermine the foundations of liberalism and the assurance of Westerners of the rightness of their path. Therefore, one would have to be crazy to put a healthy head into this sickbed and accept more Muslims, who will continue to subvert Europe from within.
Does this mean Orban is racist and Islamophobic? Or our prime minister, who declared that Israel wouldn’t take in Syrian refugees? My answer to this comes straight from the words of the renowned French writer Michel Houellebecq, who for more than a decade has been waging a literary and intellectual crusade against Islam. When he was sued at the time for racism and Islamophobia, he argued that a person who defends his cultural values against those who threaten them cannot be called racist. He said he had no problem with migrants from Arab countries who wholeheartedly adopt French values. His problem is that many of these people, instead of adopting the values of their host continent, barricade themselves in values that contradict the essence of Europe.
“Long live Houellebecq, long live Viktor Orbán!” I mumble under my breath, for fear of being lynched if I am suspected of racism and Islamophobia. As for the masses of Syrians and others now being welcomed with cheers at Germany’s train stations, I hope they don’t fall prey to the compassion lavished on them.
My family had a similar experience at another time. My father’s father was part of the wave of refugees fleeing Istanbul in the first decade of the 20th century when the Ottoman Empire collapsed, and he was welcomed with open arms by Austria. There, he hoped to build his life. And there he married and fathered my father. But soon the kindness with which he was welcomed was replaced by sick hatred, and they were lucky they had Turkey to flee back to. And so, with the New Year upon us, let us wish each other a little more logic and a little less compassion.
* Columnist Holocaust Survivor, Noah Klieger
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 … 78,00.html
Quote:
It’s the beginning of the end of Europe
Op-ed: The Europeans are failing to realize that Muslim refugees will lead to the complete disappearance of their countries’ tradition, culture and progress and to the establishment of an Islamic rule across the entire continent.
Published: 09.09.15, 10:54 / Israel Opinion
Like everyone, I have also been watching the refugee “invasion” of Europe in the past few days. And an examination of the European Union’s plan for taking them in has finally convinced me that the Europeans still know nothing about what is happening in the Middle East – and definitely not about the danger they are facing.
The European leaders, led by the leaders of Germany and France, didn’t understand anything about 40 years ago, when they opened their gates to laborers from Turkey and the Maghreb countries. Now they are repeating the same mistake – and this time to a much larger extent.
Whether out of innocence or out of foolishness, the Europeans are failing to realize that they are singlehandedly creating fundamental changes in their populations, which will lead in the coming years to the complete disappearance of the tradition, culture and progress of their countries. In other words, in the not so distant future we will witness the end of “classic Europe” and the establishment of an Islamic rule across the entire continent.
Refugees in Munich, Germany. ‘The refugees, who are mostly Muslims, have turned Germany into a territory in which they will set the tone and become the real rulers’ (Photo: AFP)
This may sound apocalyptic. However, it’s close to becoming a fact. Germany, which is willing to take in 800,000 to 1 million refugees every year, is incapable of turning them into full-fledged citizens. On the contrary: The refugees, who are mostly Muslims, have turned Germany into a territory in which they will set the tone and turn into the real rulers.
Just like Germany failed in its efforts to take in hundreds of thousands of Turkish work migrants – who have so far preserved their language, their traditional customs, including vendetta and “honor killing,” and who don’t even turn to civil courts to settle issues like murder but prefer their traditional courts – it definitely won’t manage with the millions of Muslims it is willing to take in now. Not to mention France or Sweden, which are even less prepared.
The EU plan also details the number of refugees who are supposed to be taken in by Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Croatia. But this is just further proof of the misunderstanding of the continent’s leaders: It’s clear that not a single refugee will agree to settle in countries like Bulgaria and Romania, which are among the poorest in Europe, and it’s not at all certain that countries like Poland and the Czech Republic will agree to take in the refugees.
It’s also strange that Europe’s leaders are unaware of the fact that the large majority of their public doesn’t even want the refugees. So in conclusion, it seems that Europe is once again ignoring the dangers it is facing and is failing to realize that this is the beginning of the end of the old continent.
* Europe exploring Israeli solutions to migrant crisis
Bulgaria and Hungary are looking into Israeli designed border fences and systems in order to help tackle the massive refugee crises currently enveloping European nations.
Reuters
Published: 09.03.15, 17:23 / Israel News
Faced with a surge in migration from the Middle East and North Africa, two European countries are exploring the possibility of erecting towering steel security fences along parts of their borders, similar to Israel’s barrier with
Hungary and Bulgaria have made preliminary inquiries about buying the Israeli-designed fences, according to an Israeli business source who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the discussions.
Both EU countries are beefing up their borders to deter migrants, many of them refugees from wars, who are seeking to use them as gateways to richer countries further north and west, particularly Germany.
But moves to throw up such barriers – which could be around 5-6 metres (15-20 feet) high, topped with razor wire and equipped with cameras and motion sensors – would evoke memories of Cold War-era divisions in Europe and exasperate EU officials who say they would not help to solve the crisis.
Bulgarian and Hungarian officials indicated that such discussions about security fences were taking place.
“I presume that such is the case because the cooperation between the (Israeli and Bulgarian) ministries of internal affairs and security is quite intensive,” said Rayko Pepelanov, Bulgaria’s deputy ambassador in Israel.
“I cannot give you any details right now, but I think that we have taken from the Israeli experiences as much as we can.”
Hungary’s foreign affairs and trade ministry said it “does not dispose of information about ongoing Israeli-Hungarian negotiations on buying Israeli-designed border fences”.
The Israeli source said any deals remained some way off, pointing to budget constraints and the political sensitivity in the European Union over erecting fences to control the flow of migrants and refugees from Syria, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere.
“(European countries) all want solutions and see the relevance of our technologies,” the source said. “But they also need EU support and this has not been forthcoming.”
The European Commission, the EU executive, has said it opposes the construction of fences but accepts it is up to each nation to decide how it protects its borders.
“Fences … do not send the right message, particularly to our neighbours,” said spokeswoman Mina Andreeva.
Down to the wire
The type of fence the countries have expressed interest in is the one Israel has constructed along its 230 km (143-mile) border with Egypt, rather than the steel-and-concrete barrier that separates the West Bank from Israel and East Jerusalem.
The Egyptian fence was built over three years and completed in 2013, with the aim of stopping an influx of migrants from Africa and guarding against raids by Islamist insurgents.
The fence cost the Israeli government around $380 million. A similar-style barrier is likely to cost foreign customers about 15 percent more – up to $1.9 million per km, according to industry sources, although hills, forests and other difficult European topography could drive the price higher.
Erecting such barriers would represent a significant step-up in security for Hungary and Bulgaria.
The former is already completing a 3.5-metre-high fence along its border with Serbia, while the latter has erected a fence about 3 metres high on its Turkish border. But the Israeli-designed barriers, as well as being taller, would be more heavily fortified and have more sophisticated electronic defences.
Hungary has emerged as a flashpoint in the crisis, as the primary entry point for those travelling overland across the Balkans. Its right-wing government is among the continent’s most outspoken voices against allowing mass immigration.
But EU officials have been critical of Budapest, with some pointing out the irony of the country that first opened the Iron Curtain frontier with Austria in 1989, before the Berlin Wall came down, taking the lead in erecting new barriers.
Frontex, the EU agency responsible for border management, is opposed to fences and has made clear the European Union will not help member states finance them.
“When you talk about the management of migratory flows, the fence itself is not the solution, just as border control is not the panacea for migration flows,” said spokeswoman Izabella Cooper. “You have to stabilise the countries of origin from which the refugees flee.”
* The consensus view in Israel is skeptical toward German outpouring generosity “In the name of justice and morality, in the name of the desire to give humans freedom, Germany is taking a huge gamble. It may be committing suicide. The far right will gain power, the immigrants will have an influence, the country will change. The one million refugees that Germany plans to take in, and hundreds of thousands who are arriving in different ways, will turn into a large minority within Germany. The chance that they will integrate into Europe’s Western-liberal culture is not high.
Historical experience shows that frustration creates disappointment, followed by children growing with hatred. That’s how it is with the Muslim minority in France, Britain and Holland. That’s how it is with young Western Muslims, the second and third generation of immigrants, who leave their safe home in order to volunteer with the Islamic State in the Middle East and kill other Westerners and Muslims.
Germany can deal with several million Syrian refugees demographically, but it can’t necessarily deal with the long-term outcomes. So it is precisely because of this risk that the change is so impressive.
* ‘Islamization of Europe a good thing’
Rabbi Baruch Efrati believes Jews should ‘rejoice at the fact that Europe is paying for what it did to us for hundreds of years by losing its identity.’ He praises Islam for promoting modesty, respect for God
Kobi Nahshoni
Published: 11.11.12, 13:52 / Israel Jewish Scene
As concerns grow over the increasing number of Muslims in Europe, it appears not everyone is bothered by the issue, including an Israeli rabbi who even welcomes the phenomenon.
Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement of Efrat, believes that the Islamization of Europe is actually a good thing.
“With the help of God, the gentiles there will adopt a healthier life with a lot of modesty and integrity, and not like the hypocritical Christianity which appears pure but is fundamentally corrupt,” he explained.
Rabbi Efrati was asked to discuss the issue by an oriental studies student, who inquired on Judaism’s stand toward the process Europe has been going through in recent years.
Following the election of a hijab-wearing Muslim woman as the mayor of the Bosnian city of Visoko for the first time in continent’s history, the student asked the rabbi on the Kipa website: “How do we fight the Islamization of Europe and return it to the hands of Christians and moderates?”
Efrati wrote in response that the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons – as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered “idolatry” from a halachic point of view.
“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there,” the rabbi explained as the ethical reason for favoring Muslims, quoting shocking descriptions from the Rishonim literature (written by leading rabbis who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries) about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.
“We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity…
“A now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for.”
‘Islam a relatively honest religion’
The theological reason, according to Rabbi Efrati, is that Christianity – which he sees as idolatry – has a tendency to “destroy normal life and abstain from it on the one hand, while losing modesty on the other hand,” as it “ranges between radical monasticism to radical Western licentiousness.”
Islam, the rabbi added, is “a religion which misjudges its prophets but is relatively honest. It educates a bit more for a stable life of marriage and creation, where there is certain modesty and respect for God.”
Efrati ruled, therefore, that “even if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity.”
He added, however, that Jews must pray that the Islamization of most of Europe will not harm the people of Israel.
