Gaslighting about Syrian refugees

As an American Jew whose maternal grandparents fled Europe in the face of the advancing shadow of extermination, I have seen some natural parallels between the current Syrian refugee crisis and that of the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s.

As American who lives less than 5 miles from the Bataclan theater and the Saint Denis neighborhood, I can understand how the Paris attacks have raised concerns about just who is crossing the borders.

Two days ago, Joel B. Pollak published an article speaking to these two points, entitled “Why Syrian Refugees Are Not Like Jewish Refugees in WWII” (breitbart.com). His argument contained six points which seem to provide logical evidence that indeed the refugee situations are different and we should thus be opposed to welcoming Syrian refugees.

I found only one problem with his argument. It was wrong.

Gaslighting defined

In the 1944 movie thriller Gaslight, a manipulative husband slowly drives his wife, played by Ingrid Bergman, to the brink of insanity. The term “gaslighting” has taken a popular meaning — and even been used in clinical psychiatric settings — to refer to devious actions designed to disorient, confuse, and trick someone into believing something he or she wouldn’t ordinarily believe. These actions include spinning stories, using information selectively, and duping people with formal, seemingly fact-based arguments.

Pollak’s article is gaslighting, pure and simple. Let’s break down his points.

The Security Threat

Point 1: Jews were not a terror threat; there is evidence that at least one of the terrorists was from Syria.

Point 4: Opposition to Jewish refugees was “racial”; opposition to Syrian refugees is based on security concerns.

Point 5: Many of the Syrian “refugees” are neither Syrian, nor refugees.

These points effectively aim at the same target: Jews were not considered a security threat, but the Syrians — or the people posing as Syrians — are.

Pollak’s argument hinges on two points. One is that one of the leaders of the Paris attacks was Syrian who authorities now believe was traveling on a forged passport. This is true. But what was far more disconcerting is that the rest of the terrorists were European nationals. Thinking you’re going to stop the terrorists by not allowing Syrians to enter the country is wrong.

His other point is that there are many who are traveling without proper passports, or with forged documents. In a flow that is this massive, this is indeed cause for concern. But it is not in itself evidence that people are coming to do harm. The problem is clearly one of managing the tide. It is a fact that border authorities are overwhelmed and that they need more support. Refugees are going to continue to come. Shutting the door doesn’t stop this, nor would building a fence. Again, remember: all the other Paris attackers were European nationals.

Finally, Pollak misreads or conveniently ignores historical parallels where the US had the same concerns about terrorists hiding among Jewish refugees. As Daniel Gross recently reminded us, the existence of one alleged Nazi, Herbert Karl Friedrich Bahr, would be used to sow seeds of fear and hysteria that would later lead to Japanese internment and continued opposition to Jewish immigration.

Point 2: Jews were singled out from persecution, not fleeing an ongoing war.

Pollak’s point is that Jews, by virtue of their unique persecution (like the Syrian Christians or Iraqi Yazidis) had the greater moral standing for acceptance as refugees. The rest of them he believes are ‘migrants’, not ‘refugees’ as per the UN High Commission for Refugees definition. Let’s read that definition:

“Refugees are persons fleeing armed conflict or persecution. There were 19.5 million of them worldwide at the end of 2014. Their situation is often so perilous and intolerable that they cross national borders to seek safety in nearby countries, and thus become internationally recognized as “refugees” with access to assistance from States, UNHCR, and other organizations. They are so recognized precisely because it is too dangerous for them to return home, and they need sanctuary elsewhere. These are people for whom denial of asylum has potentially deadly consequences.

“Migrants choose to move not because of a direct threat of persecution or death, but mainly to improve their lives by finding work, or in some cases for education, family reunion, or other reasons. Unlike refugees who cannot safely return home, migrants face no such impediment to return. If they choose to return home, they will continue to receive the protection of their government.

With daily reports about Daesh [I refuse to call the them the Islamic State because that would ascribe to them some legitimacy] beheadings, bombings and armed conflict across numerous failed states governed by despots or tribal lords, is Pollak really making the argument that the situation in Syria isn’t perilous or intolerable? Does it really matter that they aren’t being persecuted as a race and instead are just being indiscriminately murdered? Can we not argue that the zealotry of Daech is indeed persecution of any who do not have the same fanatical beliefs?

Someone else should look after them.

Point 3: Jews had nowhere to go; Syrian refugees should have many places to go.

Jews did struggle to find haven. Read the story of the SS St Louis, the ship filled with Jewish refugees that nobody wanted. Here’s a little news report from the NY Times about Jews being denied entry in Amsterdam. Pollak’s argues that Syrian refugees can go to any of “57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, … some, unconscionably, are refusing so far to admit any refugees.”

A stupefying number of people have left Syria. Over a million have been taken in in Turkey and Lebanon. Hundreds of thousands are in Jordan, Egypt, and even Iraq. None of the Arab emirates are opening their doors, and they should be. We can equally be critical of these states for not being more involved in helping support the Palestinians. But “they’re not doing it so we won’t either” is the rationalization of a child.

We must consider the possibility, too, that Syrian refugees don’t want to go to these countries. Roughly 25% of the Syrian population isn’t Sunni, which rules out the southern passage to the Arabian Peninsula. We can also imagine that some, perhaps many, are not going to want to live in a country ruled by intolerant autocrats who simultaneously allow massive inequality in wealth. Put differently, coming to Europe or the United States in the hope of finding tolerance and a decent job in a stable country not characterized by an all-powerful ruler where their kids can get a decent education seems like an awfully good motive to get the hell out of the Middle East.

Americans especially should find this compelling, as there are indisputable parallels with our country’s founding.

They will be a burden

Point 6: The Jewish refugees had communities willing and able to resettle them; the Syrian refugees may not.

Again, Pollak ignores history and waves around a Senate subcommittee report detailing high rates of welfare among recent Middle Eastern immigrants that will be red meat to anyone who believes that the refugees are coming to steal jobs and sponge off good taxpaying citizens.

Immigration from Arab countries to the United States has been a fact of life for over a century. While not massive, there is an appreciable Syrian (and broader Arab) community in the US. This isn’t a guarantee of a job though. Is it all that surprising that someone coming to this country out of desperation (a) will need time to assimilate and (b) may struggle to find a job? (What is clear is that, if a person is receiving federal benefits, he or she is a legal immigrant.)

Implicit in this line of thinking is that the refugees are nothing more than the Middle East’s trash. It may be the opposite, that people aiming for Europe are doing so precisely because they want to get ahead. In any event, common sense forces us to think about the journey. Look at the squalid conditions. Imagine the hundreds and thousands of miles journeyed. Does that look like something someone does for fun? Does that look like a trip you want to take your children on? [I won’t show the picture of that little boy washed up on the beach.]

Upon arriving in the United States, every community, whether it was the Jews, Irish, Italians, or Mexicans, had to figure out how to adapt to survive. People will naturally struggle to get by when they never expected to have to leave their country in the first place. People will naturally struggle to get by during an economic downturn, which is what the US experienced between 2008–2013, which is the time period for the welfare data that Pollak presents as proof these immigrants are a drain on American society.

Maybe they will be an economic burden for a while. But then maybe they will, like so many other immigrants before them, become integrated and contribute to the diversity of cultures that makes America and Europe so dynamic. The alternatives of not welcoming them are grim not just for them, but for all of humanity.

Conclusion

The current situation is appalling. A humanitarian crisis of immense proportions is unfolding in front of our eyes.

The attacks by a small group of religious zealots who have no regard for life as the vast majority of humanity sees it are appalling. We can’t allow them to continue to terrorize free societies.

No country can solve either of these problems alone, and none should be expected to.

But we must resist the fear that is borne of ignorance and bigotry. History gives us so many examples of what happens when we single out a group of people, when we allow our own benign uncertainty to be manipulated by selective information that plays on our suspicions and gives rise to fear. It leads to hate. It leads cruelty. It leads to walls that prevent understanding instead of bridges that build it.

As much as we must stand strong in the face of this evil, we must equally not let fear cloud our judgment. We can’t be lazy in the search for truth. We can’t let ourselves take shortcuts because the situation is complex.

There is a saying in the Jewish tradition that goes:

It is not your responsibility to finish the work [of improving the world], but you are not free to desist from it either.

The easiest place to start is by seeking sensible voices who look at all the facts. Joel Pollak isn’t one of them.

If you do nothing else to improve the world, then for the sake of your friends and families and yourself, seek to understand. Seek common ground. Do not allow yourself to succumb to fear or to hate.