A very intelligent analysis to share....
A very intelligent analysis to share....
There are good reasons why Europe ’s
Jews are so worried
By Harold James, February
11, 2016
The Weimar
Republic , Germany ’s flawed experiment in
democracy in the 1920s, has become today’s paradigm for the failure of state
and society. By the end of Weimar ,
the government seemed to have lost control — vigilantes from the political
extremes claimed they were keeping the streets safe while beating up vulnerable
minorities, above all Jews. So it is shocking when citizens in Germany and France
— and elsewhere in Europe — increasingly cite Weimar when discussing their society today.
The European Union now does
sometimes resemble a replay of Weimar ’s
combination of institutional perfection with violent and nationalist forces
aimed at tearing down the “system.” Though Germany ’s
1919 constitution, written in the city of Weimar ,
was widely viewed as a model document, throughout the 1920s the constitutional
dream seemed ever more disconnected from public life.
The political leaders of France and Germany today deplore anti-Semitism
and make striking gestures of solidarity with their country’s Jewish
population, but the gestures seem helpless. The number of anti-Semitic
incidents, as tracked by such bodies as the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights, is on the rise. Many Jews in many European countries, but
above all in France ,
are contemplating leaving because they believe their homelands have become so
unsafe. The political establishment tries to reassure them with the argument
that the parallels with 1933 are really too much of a stretch.
To a degree, the reassuring
voices are correct. Many of the most prominent recent European incidents are
not the outcome of an old-style anti-Semitism in France
or Germany .
Indeed, the right-wing French National Front under Marine Le Pen has distanced
itself from its older positions — as articulated by her father, Jean-Marie Le
Pen, who was convicted of Holocaust denial after calling the wartime Nazi
occupation of France
“not particularly inhuman.” In fact, today’s National Front sometimes refers to
Israel
as an ally against Islamism. In the new grass-roots anti-immigration movement
in eastern Germany ,
PEGIDA, the explicit target is “Islamicization,” and Israeli as well as Russian
flags were prominently displayed in some of its early rallies.
At the beginning, Weimar ’s political institutions were
skillfully designed to be as representative as possible. Most Germans viewed
their society as remarkably tolerant. German Jews in the 1920s often emphasized
that they lived in a more inclusive society than France’s, which was still
riven by the legacy of the Dreyfus case, when the army and the church
prosecuted an innocent Jewish officer for espionage, or than the United
States’, where prime real estate and universities were often not open to Jews.
This misconception about German stability
lasted a long time, indeed extending for a time after Adolf Hitler became
chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933. Right up until April 1933, when the regime
launched a “boycott” of Jews, many German Jews refused to accept that
anti-Semitism could be politically serious.
Today, the most obviously violent threats
clearly come from Islamic terrorism, from groups affiliated to or imitating
Islamic State. That is the story of the attack on the Jewish supermarket in Paris , where four were
killed last January, which came in the wake of the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. It is also cited
to explain the attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels , or of some of the many synagogue
attacks. The Agency for Fundamental Rights even tries to register incidents
separately and attributes some of them to “foreign ideology,” meaning radical
or jihadist Islamism.
Yet the jihadist incidents are — in
numerical terms — a minority. There is, however, an intellectual contagion, in
which native far-right radicals often use anti-Israel and anti-American slogans
that proliferate in the Middle East as part of
their anti-Semitic arsenal. In France
and Britain
the “quenelle,” a version of the Hitler salute, popularized by the French
comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala has become popular with the racist right.
In addition, arguments about anti-Semitism
have spilled over into the discussion of the refugee crisis confronting Europe . For some, the large-scale inflow of more than a
million refugees in one year, from the Middle East and North
Africa , is bound to lead to an inflow of actual terrorists, who
can easily conceal themselves in the crowds of migrants. But it is also being
blamed for a possible influx of terrorist ideas. Anti-Semitic texts such
as Mein Kampf or
the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion are widely available in the countries from which migrants
are moving; and anti-Semitism, usually linked to anti-Israelism, is a natural
ingredient of the social and cultural milieu that is moving into Europe .
Critics of large-scale immigration use the
supposed anti-Semitic culture of many migrants as an argument against
migration. They then make a case about the superiority of their native or
indigenous culture — which can also, paradoxically, include hostility to
aliens. So Jews feel vulnerable on two fronts: vulnerable because of who is attacking
them, and vulnerable because of who is defending them.
The classic liberal answer to the new threat
is that the state has an absolute and unconditional duty to protect all its
citizens. That is the position that Germany ’s Chancellor Angela Merkel
and French Prime Minister Manuel Valls insistently, and rightly, defend.
But many people will also ask whether the
state can really offer so much security. It is increasingly obvious that the
police are overstretched. That was true even before the flood of refugees. A
long trial currently under way in Munich ,
Germany , has
highlighted the way in which the intelligence service that was dedicated to
“protection of the constitution” (Verfassungsschutz)
against right-wing terrorists was for a long time blind to the threat. Instead,
it had undermined its efforts by engaging members of far-right-wing groups as
informers. Dealing with the new kinds of threat demands a far greater security
presence, as well as new methods of surveillance.
As more and more incidents demonstrate
police ineffectiveness, new groups will mobilize for self-protection. The
incidents on New Year’s Eve in Cologne and in
other German cities, in which criminal groups, composed largely of migrants
from North Africa , stole from and sexually
harassed women, have led to the formation of citizens’ patrols. In many cases,
the personnel of these patrols come from the far right and its sympathizers.
That brings the story back to Weimar . In the last years of the
republic, German streets were controlled not by the police but by paramilitary
groups, of the left (the communist Red Front Fighters’ League) as well as the
right (the Nazi Stormtroopers). Then, even the parties of the center believed
that they, too, needed their own defense organizations, and built up their own
leagues. When the government tried to ban the Nazi Stormtroopers, the army
objected on the grounds that it believed it could not effectively fight all the
different leagues simultaneously.
One lesson of Weimar is that it is very dangerous for the
state to give up its legal monopoly of violence. One key feature that makes
modern life civilized is precisely that we don’t take the law into our own
hands. But the existence of threats, real or imagined, creates a great deal of
pressure for “self-defense.”
There is a second, related lesson. Violent
and ostensibly antagonistic ideologies may be quite capable of fusing.
Sometimes in Weimar ,
the far right and far left just fought each other; on other occasions, they
joined together in attacking the “system.” Today in Europe ,
there are the same curious blends, sometimes of jihadism with traditional
anti-Semitism, or anti-jihadism and anti-immigrant populism with traditional
anti-Semitism.
The
fusing of dangerous ideologies makes members of small groups vulnerable. They
are additionally vulnerable when the state promises protection that it cannot
actually deliver. That is why Europe ’s Jews
are so worried.
The Weimar
Republic , Germany ’s flawed experiment in
democracy in the 1920s, has become today’s paradigm for the failure of state
and society. By the end of Weimar ,
the government seemed to have lost control — vigilantes from the political
extremes claimed they were keeping the streets safe while beating up vulnerable
minorities, above all Jews. So it is shocking when citizens in Germany and France
— and elsewhere in Europe — increasingly cite Weimar when discussing their society today.
The European Union now does
sometimes resemble a replay of Weimar ’s
combination of institutional perfection with violent and nationalist forces
aimed at tearing down the “system.” Though Germany ’s
1919 constitution, written in the city of Weimar ,
was widely viewed as a model document, throughout the 1920s the constitutional
dream seemed ever more disconnected from public life.
The political leaders of France and Germany today deplore anti-Semitism
and make striking gestures of solidarity with their country’s Jewish
population, but the gestures seem helpless. The number of anti-Semitic
incidents, as tracked by such bodies as the European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights, is on the rise. Many Jews in many European countries, but
above all in France ,
are contemplating leaving because they believe their homelands have become so
unsafe. The political establishment tries to reassure them with the argument
that the parallels with 1933 are really too much of a stretch.
To a degree, the reassuring
voices are correct. Many of the most prominent recent European incidents are
not the outcome of an old-style anti-Semitism in France
or Germany .
Indeed, the right-wing French National Front under Marine Le Pen has distanced
itself from its older positions — as articulated by her father, Jean-Marie Le
Pen, who was convicted of Holocaust denial after calling the wartime Nazi
occupation of France
“not particularly inhuman.” In fact, today’s National Front sometimes refers to
Israel
as an ally against Islamism. In the new grass-roots anti-immigration movement
in eastern Germany ,
PEGIDA, the explicit target is “Islamicization,” and Israeli as well as Russian
flags were prominently displayed in some of its early rallies.
At the beginning, Weimar ’s political institutions were
skillfully designed to be as representative as possible. Most Germans viewed
their society as remarkably tolerant. German Jews in the 1920s often emphasized
that they lived in a more inclusive society than France’s, which was still
riven by the legacy of the Dreyfus case, when the army and the church
prosecuted an innocent Jewish officer for espionage, or than the United
States’, where prime real estate and universities were often not open to Jews.
This misconception about German stability
lasted a long time, indeed extending for a time after Adolf Hitler became
chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933. Right up until April 1933, when the regime
launched a “boycott” of Jews, many German Jews refused to accept that
anti-Semitism could be politically serious.
Today, the most obviously violent threats
clearly come from Islamic terrorism, from groups affiliated to or imitating
Islamic State. That is the story of the attack on the Jewish supermarket in Paris , where four were
killed last January, which came in the wake of the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. It is also cited
to explain the attack on the Jewish Museum in Brussels , or of some of the many synagogue
attacks. The Agency for Fundamental Rights even tries to register incidents
separately and attributes some of them to “foreign ideology,” meaning radical
or jihadist Islamism.
Yet the jihadist incidents are — in
numerical terms — a minority. There is, however, an intellectual contagion, in
which native far-right radicals often use anti-Israel and anti-American slogans
that proliferate in the Middle East as part of
their anti-Semitic arsenal. In France
and Britain
the “quenelle,” a version of the Hitler salute, popularized by the French
comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala has become popular with the racist right.
In addition, arguments about anti-Semitism
have spilled over into the discussion of the refugee crisis confronting Europe . For some, the large-scale inflow of more than a
million refugees in one year, from the Middle East and North
Africa , is bound to lead to an inflow of actual terrorists, who
can easily conceal themselves in the crowds of migrants. But it is also being
blamed for a possible influx of terrorist ideas. Anti-Semitic texts such
as Mein Kampf or
the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion are widely available in the countries from which migrants
are moving; and anti-Semitism, usually linked to anti-Israelism, is a natural
ingredient of the social and cultural milieu that is moving into Europe .
Critics of large-scale immigration use the
supposed anti-Semitic culture of many migrants as an argument against
migration. They then make a case about the superiority of their native or
indigenous culture — which can also, paradoxically, include hostility to
aliens. So Jews feel vulnerable on two fronts: vulnerable because of who is attacking
them, and vulnerable because of who is defending them.
The classic liberal answer to the new threat
is that the state has an absolute and unconditional duty to protect all its
citizens. That is the position that Germany ’s Chancellor Angela Merkel
and French Prime Minister Manuel Valls insistently, and rightly, defend.
But many people will also ask whether the
state can really offer so much security. It is increasingly obvious that the
police are overstretched. That was true even before the flood of refugees. A
long trial currently under way in Munich ,
Germany , has
highlighted the way in which the intelligence service that was dedicated to
“protection of the constitution” (Verfassungsschutz)
against right-wing terrorists was for a long time blind to the threat. Instead,
it had undermined its efforts by engaging members of far-right-wing groups as
informers. Dealing with the new kinds of threat demands a far greater security
presence, as well as new methods of surveillance.
As more and more incidents demonstrate
police ineffectiveness, new groups will mobilize for self-protection. The
incidents on New Year’s Eve in Cologne and in
other German cities, in which criminal groups, composed largely of migrants
from North Africa , stole from and sexually
harassed women, have led to the formation of citizens’ patrols. In many cases,
the personnel of these patrols come from the far right and its sympathizers.
That brings the story back to Weimar . In the last years of the
republic, German streets were controlled not by the police but by paramilitary
groups, of the left (the communist Red Front Fighters’ League) as well as the
right (the Nazi Stormtroopers). Then, even the parties of the center believed
that they, too, needed their own defense organizations, and built up their own
leagues. When the government tried to ban the Nazi Stormtroopers, the army
objected on the grounds that it believed it could not effectively fight all the
different leagues simultaneously.
One lesson of Weimar is that it is very dangerous for the
state to give up its legal monopoly of violence. One key feature that makes
modern life civilized is precisely that we don’t take the law into our own
hands. But the existence of threats, real or imagined, creates a great deal of
pressure for “self-defense.”
There is a second, related lesson. Violent
and ostensibly antagonistic ideologies may be quite capable of fusing.
Sometimes in Weimar ,
the far right and far left just fought each other; on other occasions, they
joined together in attacking the “system.” Today in Europe ,
there are the same curious blends, sometimes of jihadism with traditional
anti-Semitism, or anti-jihadism and anti-immigrant populism with traditional
anti-Semitism.
The
fusing of dangerous ideologies makes members of small groups vulnerable. They
are additionally vulnerable when the state promises protection that it cannot
actually deliver. That is why Europe ’s Jews
are so worried.