PM Orbán’s lonely stance on migration seen as vindicated
November 23rd, 2015In the light of the Paris terrorist attacks and statements by several European leaders suggesting that they have no reason to revise their migration policies, conservative analysts, whether pro-government or not, suggest that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was right to argue against unfettered immigration from the start. Opinions diverge however on possible solutions to the problem.
On Mozgástér, Miklós Szánthó says Mr Orbán’s critics use two diametrically conflicting arguments, but both of them ultimately prove the Hungarian Prime Minister right. If the perpetrators of terrorist attacks in Europe came from Syria disguised as refugees, it means that Mr Orbán was right to resist the massive inflow of migrants. If on the other hand we consider them as homebred terrorists who would have acted with or without massive migration, then their example shows that mass immigration fails to lead to long-term integration, and thereby security problems in Europe.
In Magyar Hírlap, Emil Ludwig compares the European Union in its reaction to the Paris terror attacks to a lame duck or an agitated beehive, whereas it should be a well-organised community of nations. While European leaders continue to preach the blessings of mass immigration, Europe’s most dangerous terrorist network is alive and kicking just one street away from the European Union headquarters, in the Molenbeek district of Brussels.
In the same daily, Zsolt Bayer accuses the United States of being behind “all that’s happening in Europe and the Middle East.” He claims that the “few thousand madmen” of the Islamic State could be dealt with within a week. He suspects that the United States doesn’t want to dismantle ISIS, because it considers Russia its main rival and doesn’t want Moscow to consolidate its positions in the Middle East.
On Mandiner, Zsolt Jeszenszky thinks that terrorism will not be defeated as long as Islam doesn’t go through fundamental reforms. He calls on moderate Muslims to come forth and condemn Islamist terrorism, and compares European liberals preaching tolerance towards Islam to interwar British Prime Minister Chamberlain, the main figure of the policies of appeasement which encouraged Hitler to launch World War II.
In Magyar Nemzet, Róbert Puzsér lambasts ‘left liberal elites’ for disregarding the views of those in their own number who deem mass immigration dangerous. He calls the hundreds of thousands of people arriving in Europe immigrants, rather than refugees. 4 out of 5 are young men, many of whom left their women in peaceful and secure refugee camps in Turkey. Some of them ran away from terror, while others fled because their terrorist faction had been destroyed by American bombs, Kurdish militias or Assad’s forces. Europe’s problem is that “Islam doesn’t dissolve in Coke.” And the consequences will have to be borne by future generations. Under these conditions, although he vehemently opposes most government policies, he believes that Prime Minister Orbán is pursuing a sober political line on immigration. The domestic left, on the other hand is preparing a takeover by the far right Jobbik party, Puzsér believes.
In Népszabadság, Gábor Horváth disagrees with those who urge the West to send land forces in order to wipe out ISIS. The terrorist Caliphate, he argues, doesn’t only consist of the thousands fighting under its black flag, but enjoys the support of the bulk of the 7 to 8 million Sunni inhabitants of the region. In Iraq, the Shi’ite power that followed Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein took ugly revenge for past offences and pushed the local population into the arms of the Islamist insurgency. They feel they are fighting for their fathers, their tribes, their honour and their families. Isis, this terrorist organisation directed by former army and Secret Service officers, is unlikely to be defeated as long as it is backed by the local population, Horváth warns.