Marita Vargas
The prejudice that dares not speak its name: anti-Semitism
By Marita Vargas
The last time world-wide levels of anti-Semitism reached epidemic proportions,[1] Hitler reigned over Germany and Haj Amin al-Husseini reigned as mufti over Jerusalem — the two men became fast friends. Together the leader of National Socialism and the spiritual leader of Jerusalem's Muslims teamed up to reach their cherished goal of exterminating the Jewish people. It took a war to prevent their realizing the full extent of their dream, a dream that has not died.
In light of the fact that history seems to be repeating itself, in light of the fact that the current leader of Iran has cast himself in the role of a new Hitler, in light of the fact that the shadow that is cast over the Jewish people once more stretches across Europe and to these shores, it is time for us to ask just how effective was our response in the 1930's to Jewry's greatest need since Queen Esther stepped into the breach to stop Haman?
It was pathetic.
Britain responded with wishful thinking and weakness. Neville Chamberlain hastened off to negotiate with the Fuehrer as though they were deciding a contested cricket match. On May 28, 1939, Britain issued the death-dealing White Paper that closed off the Palestine escape hatch to Jews desperate to leave Germany. The United States decided to respond with immigration quotas, placing the anti-Semitic Breckenridge Long in charge of overseeing the entry into this country of Jews fleeing for their lives. Long allowed 169,000 Jews to enter the United States between 1931 and 1942, when millions were in need of a safe haven. And Franklin D. Roosevelt, no slouch in creating one bureaucracy after another, sat on his backside until January of 1944 before creating the War Refugee Board. By then it was too late.
The West held civilization together with its back against the wall, but barely scraped by with a passing grade in the savior of our fellow man department. Why did we stand by as six million Jews were cast into the ovens? Why?
History cannot provide an answer. The British were told the machinations of diplomacy would bring peace — it brought war. The Americans were told, after the fact, that our man in the White House failed to rescue the Jews of Europe because he feared political repercussions. Clearly, he did not expect them from the Jewish community at the time — as we do not now.
What was and is our excuse? In a world where the only decent answer to this question is that we must never let a Holocaust happen again, why are we letting it happen again?
Our situation is worse than that of Britain in the 1930's. The stakes are much higher. Our Commander-in-Chief is ideologically driven, and adheres to a leftist belief-system that is anti-Semitic at its core. Our president has demonstrated over the short course of his term that he is no friend to Israel. Furthermore, he is a wonder of hubris and delusional messianism, believing he can stop Ahmadinejad's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons with a phone call, a couple of speeches on Muslim holy days, and an empty threat of sanctions — that is if he truly believes these things, and has not, for the moment, merely adopted them as the mask he must wear. Can anyone listening to Ahmadinejad's denunciations of the Jewish state conclude that President Obama's tactics will stop the Iranian dictator?
The same appeasement strategy that will fail with Ahmadinejad will fail in our policies toward domestic Muslim terrorists. It is a miracle, if an accident, that the United States has not suffered another major terrorist attack. And, in all fairness to current policy, perhaps we never will. Perhaps we will quietly succumb to Sharia law, the Muslim takeover of education, and the stealth jihad's supremacist dream without a struggle. Neither terrible violence nor national oblivion sounds good to rank-and-file Americans, but when the powers that be live by a PC code that weakens America's response to the menace within our midst, what other outcomes are possible?
And now we are told that the Army views Bible-believing Christians as a threat to national security. They have never been a threat before. One could argue that they have been national security up to this point. Belief in a God who intervenes in the affaires of man has formed the bedrock of this nation since its founding. Who else fights our wars? The sons and daughters of politicians who think Lenin and Lennon are founders of a new world order?
We must ask our leaders to tell us how failing to aid the Jewish people back in the 1930's made our world safer? Wouldn't responding to their need have averted the most horrible war of all time? We must ask our leaders to tell us how failing to respond to the threat against the Jews in Europe today will make us all safer? And while they are at it, they can tell us how preparing the ground for negotiations with terrorists who want the destruction of all of us, not just of Israel, by bullying Israel herself, is supposed to make us safer, freer and happier?
Perhaps at this point we should change the famous words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn who said: "The line between good and evil runs through every human heart" to: The line between love and hatred of the Jewish people runs through every human heart. If history is any teacher, when those whose hearts allow for more anti-Semitic hatred than love or respect or decency begin to act on that hatred, the world had better watch out. And God help the people of any nation whose leaders will inaugurate the assault against the Jewish people or idly stand by while it is underway. By then, of course, it will be too late to do anything so gauche as to call the leaders of the Western democracies anti-Semitic. So much for the first rule of war: Know your enemies, without and within.
NOTES:
© Marita Vargas
April 28, 2010
The last time world-wide levels of anti-Semitism reached epidemic proportions,[1] Hitler reigned over Germany and Haj Amin al-Husseini reigned as mufti over Jerusalem — the two men became fast friends. Together the leader of National Socialism and the spiritual leader of Jerusalem's Muslims teamed up to reach their cherished goal of exterminating the Jewish people. It took a war to prevent their realizing the full extent of their dream, a dream that has not died.
In light of the fact that history seems to be repeating itself, in light of the fact that the current leader of Iran has cast himself in the role of a new Hitler, in light of the fact that the shadow that is cast over the Jewish people once more stretches across Europe and to these shores, it is time for us to ask just how effective was our response in the 1930's to Jewry's greatest need since Queen Esther stepped into the breach to stop Haman?
It was pathetic.
Britain responded with wishful thinking and weakness. Neville Chamberlain hastened off to negotiate with the Fuehrer as though they were deciding a contested cricket match. On May 28, 1939, Britain issued the death-dealing White Paper that closed off the Palestine escape hatch to Jews desperate to leave Germany. The United States decided to respond with immigration quotas, placing the anti-Semitic Breckenridge Long in charge of overseeing the entry into this country of Jews fleeing for their lives. Long allowed 169,000 Jews to enter the United States between 1931 and 1942, when millions were in need of a safe haven. And Franklin D. Roosevelt, no slouch in creating one bureaucracy after another, sat on his backside until January of 1944 before creating the War Refugee Board. By then it was too late.
The West held civilization together with its back against the wall, but barely scraped by with a passing grade in the savior of our fellow man department. Why did we stand by as six million Jews were cast into the ovens? Why?
History cannot provide an answer. The British were told the machinations of diplomacy would bring peace — it brought war. The Americans were told, after the fact, that our man in the White House failed to rescue the Jews of Europe because he feared political repercussions. Clearly, he did not expect them from the Jewish community at the time — as we do not now.
What was and is our excuse? In a world where the only decent answer to this question is that we must never let a Holocaust happen again, why are we letting it happen again?
Our situation is worse than that of Britain in the 1930's. The stakes are much higher. Our Commander-in-Chief is ideologically driven, and adheres to a leftist belief-system that is anti-Semitic at its core. Our president has demonstrated over the short course of his term that he is no friend to Israel. Furthermore, he is a wonder of hubris and delusional messianism, believing he can stop Ahmadinejad's relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons with a phone call, a couple of speeches on Muslim holy days, and an empty threat of sanctions — that is if he truly believes these things, and has not, for the moment, merely adopted them as the mask he must wear. Can anyone listening to Ahmadinejad's denunciations of the Jewish state conclude that President Obama's tactics will stop the Iranian dictator?
The same appeasement strategy that will fail with Ahmadinejad will fail in our policies toward domestic Muslim terrorists. It is a miracle, if an accident, that the United States has not suffered another major terrorist attack. And, in all fairness to current policy, perhaps we never will. Perhaps we will quietly succumb to Sharia law, the Muslim takeover of education, and the stealth jihad's supremacist dream without a struggle. Neither terrible violence nor national oblivion sounds good to rank-and-file Americans, but when the powers that be live by a PC code that weakens America's response to the menace within our midst, what other outcomes are possible?
And now we are told that the Army views Bible-believing Christians as a threat to national security. They have never been a threat before. One could argue that they have been national security up to this point. Belief in a God who intervenes in the affaires of man has formed the bedrock of this nation since its founding. Who else fights our wars? The sons and daughters of politicians who think Lenin and Lennon are founders of a new world order?
We must ask our leaders to tell us how failing to aid the Jewish people back in the 1930's made our world safer? Wouldn't responding to their need have averted the most horrible war of all time? We must ask our leaders to tell us how failing to respond to the threat against the Jews in Europe today will make us all safer? And while they are at it, they can tell us how preparing the ground for negotiations with terrorists who want the destruction of all of us, not just of Israel, by bullying Israel herself, is supposed to make us safer, freer and happier?
Perhaps at this point we should change the famous words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn who said: "The line between good and evil runs through every human heart" to: The line between love and hatred of the Jewish people runs through every human heart. If history is any teacher, when those whose hearts allow for more anti-Semitic hatred than love or respect or decency begin to act on that hatred, the world had better watch out. And God help the people of any nation whose leaders will inaugurate the assault against the Jewish people or idly stand by while it is underway. By then, of course, it will be too late to do anything so gauche as to call the leaders of the Western democracies anti-Semitic. So much for the first rule of war: Know your enemies, without and within.
NOTES:
[1] Let's use the anti-Israel stance of the E.U., the U.N., the Arab League, Russia, China and the U.S. as our standard to gage anti-Semitism, otherwise known as the: "If you dare to build an apartment in your capitol city I'll let your enemy kill you criteria; and if you don't build an apartment in your capitol city I'll let your enemy kill you eventually when they have again run out of patience in the negotiation process." This stance keeps the Jewish people on tenterhooks no matter what they do, and for some reason is sufficient evidence to prevent any of its practitioners from being called anti-Semitic. Go figure.
© Marita Vargas
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
