Dennis Prager: Europe’s rush to open its borders is a dangerous mistake

The columnist Dennis Prager makes an eloquent argument that Europe is shooting itself in the foot by allowing millions of migrants from Syria and Iraq to enter its borders.Attention Sign Danger Ahead

His focus is that from a Jewish point of view, the parallels to the Holocaust “are far from precise.”

In particular, he points out that in Nazi-occupied Europe every Jew “was targeted for death.” In Syria, the Christians and Yazidis are the targets, and Prager calls on Europe to admit all from those two groups who want in.

And among other things, he notes that “the vast majority of the Jews of Germany and many other European countries were assimilated citizens of their respective countries, who thoroughly embraced western culture and values. In contrast, most of the Muslims of the Middle East — and the largely Muslim population (from non-Arab countries) already in Europe — hold values that are not merely different from, but opposed to, those of Europe.”

In the U.K., France and Sweden, Prager argues at, many Muslims have sequestered themselves and refused to integrate. And their children, “the ones born and raised in European [countries,] are usually the most radical and anti-western.”

Prager, who with Rabbi Joseph Telushkin published the bestselling “The 9 Questions People Ask About Judaism,” does not suggest that Europe and the U.S. sit on their hands. Both should supply the Kurds, whom he calls “the good guys in the Muslim Middle East,” with weaponry.

And if he comes up short in his argument, it is when he says that the U.S., Europe and the “rich Arab states” should spend more than $1 billion “to help feed and clothe Syrians who flee to neighboring countries.” We have been pounding the table saying that the Arab states should be spending uncountable sums to feed and clothe their people — before they run away.

Read Prager’s column here.

The Arab Gulf States are doing nothing to help the Syrian refugees? What a (non) surprise.

It is reassuring to see that Human Rights Watch as well as the international media are waking up to the fact that the Arab states have been doing little or nothing to rescue the huge numbers of refugees fleeing the fighting in Syria.

The New York Times says that “the Gulf nations have agreed to resettle only a surprisingly small number of refugees.”

Surprising to whom? Certainly not here. We wrote about this in April when the refugee crisis could no longer be pushed aside and Europe’s governments came under pressure to take in the people running from Bashar Assad’s disintegrating country and elsewhere.

We said at the time that Europe had an obligation, surely, but the primary obligation lay with the rich oil states to step up and help their brothers and sisters. It still does.

In the Times we read that “Gulf officials and commentators reject the criticism” of their non-effort on behalf of the Syrians. The officials say that “their countries have generously funded humanitarian aid and that giving Syrians the ability to work is better than leaving them with nothing to do in economically struggling countries and squalid refugee camps.”

Interesting assertion by those officials. Can we see the bank-transfer receipts from Saudi and Qatar to Gaza and Lebanon (or at least the pittance that might have been left over after Hamas and Hezbollah got the lion’s share of the funds)? And might we see the contracts with builders that created apartments and infrastructure for the average Palestinian Arabs living in refugee camps there? (This excludes, of course, the contracts for the villas occupied by Hamas and Palestinian Authority officials.)

Unavailable, are they? Hmm. But we digress.

Israel is under enormous pressure to manage a substantial influx of African economic migrants. This is not an easy matter in a country the size of Saudi Arabia’s fingernail.

But the Arab states, with their wealth and sheer size, can very definitely address this massive humanitarian crisis – which they’ve largely created, with authoritarian government, out-of-control sectarian hate, a refusal to recognize the Jewish State and the related opportunities for mutual economic development, and a complete lack of economic vision and willingness to share their natural-resource wealth with its rightful owners, the broad population there.

The Arab states must, must, stand up, stop equivocating, stop funding terrorism and use their enormous energy wealth to start funding the needs of their own people.

Here’s The Times’ account:

Confronted with a picture taken in Israel, democracy crumbles in the UK

When democratic governments confront anti-democratic forces purveying stupidity, for the most part the sitting officials know enough to slap them down. But when it comes to the anti-Israel boycott-divestment-sanctions movement, elected officials sometimes lose their bearings.

The Guardian reports that the Cardiff, UK, City Council shut down a photo exhibit displaying Jews, Muslims, and Christians playing soccer, because the photos were taken in Israel.

Through a spokesman, the council said that it received a complaint about the exhibition, that a protest was planned for a Wales-Israel soccer game scheduled for the weekend, and it decided to pull the photo exhibit.

The Guardian wrote that the spokesman said the decision to pull the exhibit was “made at officer level, not by an elected councillor.” That still doesn’t answer the question of who made the decision. Someone did. And that someone’s name needs to be made public and the person attached to the name needs to be held to account.

The article quotes the Israeli embassy in London and the Cardiff Council opposition leader denouncing the cancellation of the photo exhibit. And it quotes one Adam Johannes of something called Cardiff Stop the War Coalition as praising the council’s cowardly dive under the table and cancellation of the exhibit.

The Guardian also quoted a statement from the Cardiff council:

— “From an operational perspective it is important that our buildings are open and accessible to all and it is important that at no time should we be in a position where any exhibition could lead visitors to suppose that the council could be seen to be displaying a political bias.” —

When a government finds itself, as this one did, in a situation where both choices it faces will bring criticism, it is obligated to choose the one that serves openness and the people’s right to know.

It must choose against people who would suppress speech and knowledge. And the BDS ravers who shouted down this exhibition are the speech suppressors. They must be heard – and then ignored out of existence.

Read the Guardian piece here: