61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

however, and were applied to all Jews; they were combined with (more open)
xenophobic and socio-cultural prejudice in the case of foreign and in particular
Eastern-European Jews, with the result that anti-Semitism manifested itself
most clearly in the case of «Eastern Jews». Rothmund, for example, liked to
emphasise that he was on the side of Swiss Jews who had adopted Swiss customs
and traditions. Innumerable blatant statements concerning foreign Jews that
are full of anti-Semitic stereotyping can be found coming not only from
Rothmund but throughout the context of refugee policy. 58 Rothmund
explained his policy on refugees in an argument with a critical member of
parliament, adding:
«You’ll see – we’re not such terrible people after all! But we won’t let
ourselves be led by the nose, and especially not by Eastern Jews who, as
everyone knows, are always trying to do so, because they’re always trying
to wangle something; you’ll see, our approach is totally in line with the
attitude of the people of Switzerland». 59
This distinction between Swiss and foreign Jews was also made by the authorities.
It must be underlined that the Swiss authorities in no way tried to adopt
Nazi theories nor to imitate their practices but rather stating that German racist
policy was contrary to the basic principles of Swiss law and Swiss society. There
were, however, opposing tendencies, notably those aiming at a legal discrimination
of Jews and at the application of categories based on race. The least
affected by these were Swiss Jews living in Switzerland, although even they were
to suffer from the fact that people, at least in some circles, were prepared to call
into question the equal rights that were guaranteed by the Constitution, e.g., in
the form of the above-mentioned agreement regarding the marking of German
Jews’ passports. 60 The authorities were prepared to make greater concessions
concerning Swiss Jews living abroad. However, they were motivated to a considerable
degree by the anticipation of possible diplomatic complications with
Germany. The best-known example in this respect is the attitude adopted by the
Federal Council regarding diplomatic protection for Swiss Jews living in France.
In April 1938 the issue of diplomatic protection for Swiss citizens residing
abroad was raised in connection with the debate on the German order for Jews
to register their assets. In answer to a question tabled by the Social Democrat
National Councillor Ernest-Paul Graber in 1941, the Federal Council replied
that Swiss Jews living in France had neither the right to the same treatment as
non-Jewish Swiss citizens living there, nor the right to be treated as exceptions
in comparison with other Jews living in France. This represented a departure
both from the Constitutional guarantee of equal rights – with potentially serious
123