The truths of immigration

“What the West does not understand is that Islam admits that government control is central to Islam and that Muslims must, sooner or later, demand to live under an Islamic government.” [Nonie Darwish]

Alex Nowrasteh’s paper which appeared in the Policy Analysis No. 798 edition of September 13, 2016 makes two obvious, but no less significant points. He reminds us that terrorism is a hazard to human life and material prosperity that should be addressed in a sensible manner whereby the benefits of actions to contain it outweigh the costs. In this, the federal government has an important role to play in screening foreigners who enter the United States, and to exclude those who pose a threat to the national security, safety, or health of Americans.

Any reasonable and objective individual would recognize that Donald Trump well understood the forgoing assertions, but erred in their applications. That he saw a need to address what has been described as a “travel ban”with urgency was not unreasonable given radical Islam’s obsession to conquer the world.

Following the tragedy of the toppling of the World Trade Center by Muslim terrorists, most Americans expressed their shock in the mantra of “never again”. But this was not to be as they appeared to forget rather soon. The advocates of leftism in their guilt rushed to elect an Islam 1st rather than an American 1st president. Those of us who witnessed a human being jumping from the 90th floor of the WTC when faced with the other alternative of burning alive, will never forget.

To recognize today that not all Muslims are terrorists is not to offer relief in the recognition that by far most terrorists are Muslims. This is not racism, but realism and failure to face the facts is akin to attempting problem resolution without defining the problem.

“We are saying openly that we do not want the Jews, while the democracies keep on claiming that they are willing to receive them – and then leave them out in the cold.” These were the words of Hitler, which comes to mind, as one contemplates the German steamship St. Louis cruising into the harbor at Havana, Cuba, with 930 Jewish immigrants aboard. He also included additional words such as “shameful example”tears of pity” and “tortured people” to make his point.

The Roosevelt Democratic administration publicly opposed any efforts to loosen the immigration restrictions. In the case of the St. Louis, regular Jewish citizens were the victims unlike Muslim terrorists that the Obama regime would carelessly give a free pass. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr. learned of the situation from the newspapers, but did not intervene beyond verifying with the Coast Guard commander that the St. Louis was being followed.

After the US government’s refusal to permit the passengers to disembark, the St. Louis sailed back to Europe on June 6, 1939. The passengers did not return to Germany as Jewish organizations [particularly the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee] negotiated wit 4 European governments to secure entry visas for the passengers. At the end of the day, only slightly half, 278 passengers survived the Holocaust, 532 were trapped when Germany conquered Western Europe.

Clearly, the deafening silence of the American Jewish leadership during the St. Louis crisis sent a powerful message to Hitler as he himself confirmed. Shedding crocodile tears over his treatment of the Jews while taking no concrete action on their behalf, assured the Fuhrer that he could deal with them as he pleased.

In Haskel Lookstein’s book, “Were we our brother’s keepers?” on the public response of American Jews to the Holocaust 1938-1944, he devotes an entire chapter to the St. Louis entitled ‘The Saddest Ship Afloat’. He notes that while compassionate editorials had been written, no response was forthcoming from American Jewish leaders or their organizations; with the exception of the JDC.

The fear of growing antisemitism is offered as one reason for the reticence towards Jewish involvement. There is also mention of a reduction in available funding. In this mood of pessimism, the Jewish community did not react quickly to the plight of the St. Louis refugees. One writer observed:

“It did not even occur to Jews to appeal to the American government to find a way of saving the hapless passengers on the St. Louis—–[We are] showing increasing signs of becoming spiritually and morally reconciled to accept the ghetto and almost voluntarily to surrender the positions won by Emancipation. Our own depression and demoralization are immeasurably more dangerous to ourselves than the blows of our enemies.” “The world is full of wickedness, and no help can be expected from it”, cried another.”

During December, 1939, the 550,000 Jews in Palestine constituted the only society on earth willing to take in masses of Jewish refugees. However, at that time, Britain the mandate holder over Palestine, had virtually closed it to Jewish immigration. In fact, to appease the Arabs, the British issued yet another White paper restricting future Jewish immigration to 75,000 spread over the next 5 years.

In 1941, crowded into a small vessel, the Struma, 769 Jews, with no entry certificates, fled Rumania for Palestine. Upon reaching Turkey in apparent safety, the boat’s engine failed, beyond repair. The refugees waited with their fate in the balance for 2 months off the shore of Istanbul. They were refused a release by the Turkish government pending an assurance that they could proceed to Palestine. This, the British refused in their quiet determination not to encourage any more “shiploads of unwanted Jews”. It should be noted that the US State Department quietly but completely supported Britain’s Palestine policy.

In opposition to the captain’s insistence that the Struma was seaworthy, the Turkish authorities had it towed out of the port in late February, 1942. While in the open sea, the crippled boat was torpedoed, possibly by a Russian submarine, or struck by a mine and broke apart. Only one person survived the wreck.

The resultant views expressed by notable individuals following this awful event speaks volumes. Eleanor Roosevelt asked why the technicalities should keep such people out of Palestine when the tiny quota was not even filled; ”it just seems to me cruel beyond words.” She also suggested to Sumner Welles that Jewish refugees turned away from Palestine be taken into British colonies in East Africa. Anywhere, but not America! Albert Einstein asserted that the episode “strikes at the heart of our civilization.” Hardly a specific condemnation of America or Britain!

It was not a lack of workable plans that stood in the way of saving many thousands of European Jews. The real obstacle was the “absence of a strong desire to rescue Jews.” The Spectator Archive of 2 April, 1942 questioned the British on their own immigration laws of the time, which were governed by the infamous White Paper of 1939.That document was rejected by the Mandate Commission and not even considered by the Council of the League. It was therefor entirely devoid of any legality. In the House of Commons debate on May 22nd-23rd, 1939, it was denounced by all the leading members of the Government. Winston Churchill stigmatized it as “an act of repudiation—-a plain breach of solemn obligation -and—-another Munich.”

Even if the White Paper had been applicable, there was a provision for an allowance to admit 25, 000 Jewish refugees within 5 years from 1939.In summary, the British unjustly discriminated against Jews in the very land in which it pledged to facilitate the establishment of the Jewish National Home. Hasim Surel’s November, 2005 paper investigates, “Were Britain and Turkey Responsible for the Struma Tragedy.”

Today, Jewish leftists, typified by J Street, oppose immigration control and Jewish rights to the Land of Israel. As confirmed by like minded Jews in the era of both the St. Louis and the Struma their forbears hardly resisted the abusive immigration laws inflicted on Jews. The Jewish passengers on both ships were regular citizens and not terrorists.

Martin Sherman, writing in the Jerusalem Post of February 3, 2017, in support of Trump on immigration points to the gravest of threats. He draws attention to the erosion of Judaeo-Christian values on which civilization was founded and its very survival in Britain, Germany, Belgium, France and Sweden. This has manifested itself in societies which are being torn apart by waves of [im]migrants from Muslim majority countries that have converted growing urban enclaves into no-go zones for law-enforcement officers, and which non-Muslims enter at their peril. Sherman concludes as follows:

Should the US, as per Trump’s executive order, ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes towards it and its founding principles?” Or should it not? Should the US”—–admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law”? Or should it not? This Sherman sees as indeed a stark choice – but an unavoidable one.

J Street finds fault with Donald Trump’s choice of David Friedman as US Ambassador for Israel. Friedman is an orthodox Jew, who unlike all previous ambassadors will protect US interests, but not the enemies of Israel. He does not wear his Jewishness on his sleeves. J Street finds solace in supporting the enemies of Israel while positing itself as pro-Israel.

What sort of logic prevails in ignoring the outcome of Israel’s disengagement from Gaza? Is the West Bank to become another Hamastan? The youth who have grown up under the Holocaust denier Abbas are unquestionably hate filled. Hardly the foundation of peace!

In an Haaretz piece of February 14, 2017, Ben-Ami, J Street’s leader states, “The treatment of the refugees from Muslim countries resonates with Jewish Americans because nearly every Jewish American has a refugee ancestor.” Really, does he mean inclusive of a terrorist background or harboring ill-will towards America? Does he realize that what he refers to as a two state solution is what Moshe Aarons refers to as a four state solution? [Haaretz]

References
1. Te Deafening Silence by Rafael Medoff.
2. The Abandonment of the Jews by David S.Wyman.

About the Author
Alex Rose was born in South Africa in 1935 and lived there until departing for the US in 1977 where he spent 26 years. He is an engineering consultant. For 18 years he was employed by Westinghouse until age 60 whereupon he became self-employed. He was also formerly on the Executive of Americans for a Safe Israel and a founding member of CAMERA, New York (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America and today one of the largest media monitoring organizations concerned with accuracy and balanced reporting on Israel). In 2003 he and his wife made Aliyah to Israel and presently reside in Ashkelon.
Comments