Saturday, August 18, 2007

Report from The Swedish Integration Board on Swedish attitudes towards Islam, Muslims and related topics

2004 report from The Swedish Integration Board on Swedish attitudes towards Islam, Muslims and related topics- Integrationsbarometer 2004 från Integrationsverket

Quotes (the translation from Swedish is mine):

"A clear majority has a negative view of the Muslim culture and Muslim values. For instance, sex out of ten reject that Islam has created an impressive culture and nearly eight out of ten regard Islam as incompatible with the Western World. A very small percentage has a solidly positive view of Muslim culture"

"A majority says that values within Islam are incompatible with basic values in the Swedish society"

"Group 1 - Consider Islam`s vaules as compatible with those of the Swedish society (29,7 percent).
Group 2 - Consider large parts of Islam`s values to be incompatible with those of the Swedish society (36,0 percent).
Group 3 - Consider Islam`s vauels to being absolutely incompatible with those of the Swedish society (30,4 percent)."
All in all two thirds consider Islam to be incompatible with Swedish values."

"Six out of ten state that they feel mistrust when socializing with Muslims and six out of ten state that they would not want to move to a neighbourhood with many Muslims in it."

"All in all 37 percent have a negative view of the building of mosques in Sweden."

"42,5 percent have a negative view of building mosques in the area that they themselves live in; about 27 percent have a very negativ view and about 16 percent are have a rather negative."

"For example, nearly six out of ten reject the claim on limiting muslim immigration and even somewhat more people reject the view that the number of Muslims in Sweden create feelings of alienation."

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

The Nizkor Project: David Irving on "Ausrotten"

From The Nizkor Project:

David Irving on 'Ausrotten'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the first tasks which any Holocaust-denier must undertake is to explain, if Hitler never intended to exterminate the Jews, why he said so repeatedly in public.

On January 30, 1939, speaking before the Reichstag:

Today I want to be a prophet once more: if international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevation of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.

September, 1942:

...if Jewry should plot another world war in order to exterminate the Aryan peoples in Europe, it would not be the Aryan people which would be exterminated but Jewry...

November 8, 1942:

You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: if Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now.

The phrase "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" in the 1939 speech is, in German, die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa. This is unambiguous; and there is no question as to its proper translation, even from Holocaust-deniers. If your computer supports RealAudio, you can listen to that portion of the speech, as it was excerpted in the Nazi propaganda film Der Ewige Jude.

But David Irving says of these speeches, and other Hitler speeches, that Hitler's meaning was not really extermination. The German word for "exterminate" and "extermination," in the 1942 speeches, is ausrotten. According to German dictionaries, it means one thing and one thing only when referring to living beings: to kill. (See next page.) The nature of the killing is often rendered as "exterminate" or "extirpate" in English, but the meaning is the same: to kill.

Yet Irving, who is fluent in German, claims that:

it really means "stamping out" or "rooting out." For example, Irving (1977) translates a conversation between Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories. In the Rosenberg's discussion of handling the Jews, Irving infers "stamping out" for the word ausrotten, and then concludes that Rosenberg meant transporting Jews out of the Reich (p. 356n).

The above is from an article in Skeptic magazine by Dr. Michael Shermer, who interviewed Irving in 1994.

When confronted with a native-speaking professor of German who informed Shermer that the word did mean "exterminate," Irving's response was:

The word ausrotten means one thing now in 1994, but it meant something very different in the time Adolf Hitler uses it.

How does Irving know this? Let's start with what he told Shermer in 1994:

Different words mean different things when uttered by different people. What matters is what that word meant when uttered by Hitler. I would first draw attention to the famous memorandum on the four-years plan of August, 1936. In that Adolf Hitler says, "we are going to have to get our armed forces in a fighting state within four years so that we can go to war with the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union should ever succeed in overrunning Germany it will lead to the Ausrottung [1] of the German people." There's that word. There is no way that Hitler can mean the physical liquidation of 80 million Germans. What he means is that it will lead to the emasculation of the German people as a power factor.

By extension, Mr. Irving is saying that when Hitler spoke of the "Ausrottung" of the Jewish people, he meant only that they would be "emasculated ... as a power factor."

Ten years earlier, Irving had said very nearly the same thing at the 1983 "International Revisionist conference" of the IHR. You can find a complete transcript of his speech on the CODOH website. He said:

I made a card index of every instance where he used that word in the 1930s. About 15 documented instances. Look at his memorandum on the Four Year Plan of August 1936. [...] in that document is the following phrase: The Wehrmacht has got to be ready in four years to fight the Soviet Union (which is significant, because he's only ever looking eastwards) because if the Soviet Union should ever succeed in invading and conquering Germany it will end with the "Ausrottung" [1] of the German people, of the German Volk. And I say to the historians: Is Hitler really saying here that if the Soviet Union succeeds in invading all Germany and conquering them, it's going to end up with the liquidation, the murder, of 80 million Germans? Of course he's not: he's just saying it means the end of Germany.

Again, Irving argues by comparison that Hitler only referred to "the end" of the Jewish religion or Jewish culture, not necessarily to the murder of millions of Jewish people.

Irving makes a good argument. The only trouble is, it just isn't true.

And since Irving has paid such close attention to where Hitler has used that word, he surely knows it isn't true.

The Context
Let us see exactly what Hitler means by the word "ausrotten" -- the word he uses repeatedly and publicly to describe what he will do to the Jews.

What was Germany's war situation at the time?

By May 26th, 1944, Germany was on the losing side of the war, and was sliding fast. The great Allied offensive had begun in summer 1943; with Italy captured and Germany's air force decimated, Allied bombers were destroying nearly any target they pleased in Europe.

"Toward the end of 1943 at the latest," the now unemployed General Halder would later write, "it had become unmistakably clear that the war was militarily lost." [2]

By May of 1944, the Allied invasion of France was expected at any minute (and D-Day was in fact just two weeks away).

Hitler and the Nazi leaders insisted, even when things were hopeless, that victory would be theirs -- but, in order to secure that victory, the German people would have to fight to the bitter last -- down to the last man, woman, and child. This commitment to total war had been part of Hitler's rhetoric from the beginning, but became more important as the Allied armies approached the German border.

Hitler's May 26th Speech
To establish this fixated suicidal determination in the people, the army, and the officers of the army, required that Nazi leaders convince them that death, and worse, was the price of defeat. Hitler stressed this point over and over. The war may look hopeless, he repeated, but surrender or defeat would mean such utter destruction that the war must be fought at all costs.

To communicate this image of utter destruction, on May 26th, 1944, Hitler painted a vivid picture of what a German loss would mean:

Meine Herren Offiziere, wir stehen in einem Kampf auf Leben und auf Tod. Wenn in diesem Kampf unsere Gegner siegen, würde das deutsche Volk ausgerottet werden. Der Bolschewismus würde Millionen und Millionen und Millionen unserer Intellektuellen abschlachten. Was nicht durch Genickschuß stürbe, würde abtransportiert. Die Kinder höherer Schichten würden wegkommem und beseitigt werden.

In English:

My dear generals, we are fighting a battle of life and death. If our enemies are victorious in this struggle, the German people will be extirpated. The Bolsheviks will butcher millions upon millions of our intellectuals. Those who escape the bullet in the back of the neck will be deported. The children of the upper classes will be taken away and got rid of.

This speech was met with loud applause.

Hitler's aim in this part of the speech was to emphasize the total destruction which awaited defeat, and to make it appear so horrible that no one could do anything but fight to the very end.

And how did Hitler describe this butchery? What word did he choose to underscore the horrible slaughter of millions, to communicate the brutality which awaited the German Volk?



...das deutsche Volk ausgerottet werden.
...the German people are to be extirpated.

"Ausgerottet werden" is the present passive infinitive of the verb "ausrotten."

Ausrotten
Recall from the previous page that David Irving had quoted Hitler:

If the Soviet Union should ever succeed in overrunning Germany it will lead to the Ausrottung [1] of the German people.

Because this was the same word used by Hitler to describe his plans for the Jews, Mr. Irving sought to nullify its meaning:

There's that word ("ausrotten"). There is no way that Hitler can mean the physical liquidation of 80 million Germans.

But this is what Hitler meant, excepting the exact figure: the "butchery" of "millions and millions and millions."

Hitler's words, regarding what would happen to a defeated Germany, could have referred to the Holocaust of European Jews with great accuracy. Shall we say that the Holocaust was the butchery of millions and millions, including children, and the deportation of those who survived execution? If Mr. Irving or anyone else wishes to say that, no historian will argue.

Recall that Hitler said repeatedly: [3]

[...] it would not be the Aryan people which would be ausgerottet, but Jewry [...]

[...] the result will not be the Ausrottung of the European races, but the Ausrottung of Jewry in Europe.

Was Irving Unaware?
Mr. Irving has clearly ignored the May 26th speech. But can he claim he was not aware of it?

The answer is no. The translation above is David Irving's.

It is David Irving's translation, from the 1977 edition of his book Hitler's War, p. 631. In fact, it is only thanks to Mr. Irving that Nizkor became aware of this speech at all! [4]

So what are we to make of Mr. Irving's "card index" of Hitler's usages of this word? Perhaps his card index really only applied to the 1930s, and perhaps he somehow overlooked this usage in 1944 (even though he had translated it himself). Or perhaps he will expect us to believe that, despite Hitler's continuing to use the word to refer to the destruction of European Jews throughout the war, [5] he was correct to turn a blind eye to its meaning in this speech.

Did the Meaning Change?
And what are we to make of his claim that "the word ausrotten means one thing now in 1994, but it meant something very different in the time Adolf Hitler uses it"?

Words do change meaning over time, it is true, but German dictionaries tell us that "ausrotten" has not changed at least in this century. [6]

But, since Mr. Irving doubts the dictionaries, it would be interesting to see him try to explain how the word changed meaning between page 51 of the transcript of Hitler's speech and page 53!

On page 53, Hitler says:

Ich habe auch hier eingegriffen, und auch dieses Problem wird nun gelöst werden, wie ich überhaupt sagen muß: der Jude hat als Programm aufgestellt die Ausrottung des deutschen Volks. Ich habe am 1. September 1939 in Deutschen Reichstag erklärt: wenn jemand glaubt, durch einen solchen Weltkrieg die deutsche Nation auszurotten, dann irrt er sich; wenn das Judentum das wirklich arrangiert, dann wird derjenige, der ausgerottet sein wird, das Judentum sein.

In English -- again, the translation is Mr. Irving's, along with the bracketed comment:

If I may say this: the Jews had as their program the extirpation [Ausrottung] of the German people. On September 1, 1939, I announced in the Reichstag, if any man believes he can extirpate the German nation in a world war, he is wrong; if Jewry really tries that, then the one that will be extirpated is Jewry itself.

The other words that he translates "extirpate" are also ausrotten.

As we have seen, he has later explained how Hitler did not mean literal killing of people -- only "emasculation" and so on. So perhaps he can also explain how the meaning changed from the "butchery" of "millions and millions" on p. 51, to "the emasculation of the [Jewish] people as a power factor" on p. 53.

Of course, even if he could explain this, Hitler's other speeches on the ausrotten of the Jewish people would remain.

Or, on the other hand, perhaps he can admit that his theories are wrong, and that Hitler really did speak, publicly, of the extermination of the Jewish race in Europe.

Notes

Note that both Shermer's and CODOH's transcription of what Irving said are almost certainly wrong. Irving would know better than to use the verb "ausrotten" as a noun, or to fail to capitalize the noun, "Ausrottung." Because these are transcriptions of spoken text, I am giving Irving the benefit of the doubt, and silently correcting these errors.

Shirer, William, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 1960, pp. 1009-1010.

Please see previous page.

My thanks go out to Nizkor volunteer Laura Finsten for finding and copying the microfilm of Himmler's transcript of Hitler's speech. As Irving's book indicates (p. 883n), it is at the National Archives on microfilm, Microcopy T175, roll 92, pp. 3475 et seq. Nizkor has scanned ten pages of the transcript; the section quoted is on page 51.
I do not claim that Mr. Irving's translation is perfect; I use it mostly so that no supporter of his can accuse me of mistranslation.


See e.g. Shirer, op. cit., p. 964. Regarding Hitler's 1939 prophecy to the Reichstag, quoted on the previous page, Shirer says "he repeated it five times, verbatim, in subsequent public utterances." Two of those occasions are also quoted on the previous page, once directly above.

See for example the 1906 edition of the Muret-Sanders enzyklopädisches englisch-deutsches und deutsch-englishes Wörterbuch, published in Berlin-Schöneberg by Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung:
aus-rotten I v/a. (21) b. sep. 1. [...] Volksstämme, Wölfe zc.: to exterminate.

Translation:

aus-rotten 1. [...] Tribes or races of people, wolves, etc.: to exterminate.

Or, Der Sprach-Brockhaus. Deutsches Bildwörterbuch für jedermann, published in Leipzig by F. A. Brockhaus in 1935 (this is the complete entry):

die Aus rottung, -/-en,
voellige Vernichtung.

Translation:

die Aus rottung, -/-en,
complete annihilation.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

About contemporary anti-Semitism in Germany

In the context of the piece posted below I also suggest you read the book The New Germany and the Old Nazis by Tete Harens Tetens and read the previous posts on this blog entitled Poll: 68 percent of Germans believe that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the "Palestinians" and Report: 62% of Germans are tired of hearing about the Holocaust, and 70% respond with anger when the subject of Nazi crimes is discussed ).

From Jewish Political Studies Review:

Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004)

Anti-Semitism In Germany Today:
Its Roots And Tendencies1
Susanne Urban

The new millennium has witnessed a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the world, especially in Europe. Anti-Semitism certainly did not disappear in Germany after WW II. What is new is the blunt expression of anti-Semitism and the fraternization between left-wing and right-wing, liberal and conservative streams. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism continue to spread in German society and are more and more openly expressed.

Right-wing groups and neo-Nazis are no longer the only ones who agitate against Israel and Jews. Together with "traditional" anti-Semitism, Germany has seen a growth of leftist anti-Semitism along with anti-imperialist, antiglobalization, and anti-Zionist attitudes, all reinforcing the new German claim of having been victims in WW II.

There is a widespread animus against Israel, clearly not only toward Israeli policies, that often goes along with pro-Palestinian partisanship. This development is intensified by anti-Israeli media coverage in Germany, often accompanied by anti-Semitic language and images.

This "new" anti-Semitism in Germany correlates with changes in the nation's attitudes toward WW II and remembrance of the Shoah. Laying the blame for "immoral" conduct on Israel, and therefore "the Jews," makes clear that "they" did not learn the lessons of the Shoah; whereas Germans see themselves as having learned the lessons by being watchmen against "immoral" politics.

In 1967 Jean Améry wrote: "The classic phenomenon of anti-Semitism is taking a new shape. The old one still exists, this I call coexistence....To be clear: anti-Semitism, included in...anti-Zionism as the thunderstorm is part of the cloud, is again respectable....But: a respectable anti-Semitism is not possible."2

More than thirty-five years later, it seems nothing has changed. Although anti-Semitism masks itself above all as anti-Zionism or "criticism of Israeli policies," its roots are pure, traditional anti-Semitism.

The Devil in Disguise

Améry’s appeal not to become complacent toward anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism has lost none of its importance. Born in 1912 in Vienna, Améry survived the Holocaust and after 1966 worked mainly as a journalist. His writings are responses to anti-Semitism by someone who lost faith in the world in Auschwitz. He committed suicide in 1978.

The new millennium has witnessed a resurgence of anti-Semitism in the world, especially in Europe. There is a clear link to the terror war in Israel, and a widespread animus against Israel (not just Israeli policies) and Diaspora Jews along with pro-Palestinian partisanship. This development is intensified by anti-Israeli media coverage including the use of anti-Semitic language and images.

In Germany, anti-Semitism certainly did not disappear after WW II. What is new is the blunt expression of anti-Semitism and the fraternization between left-wing and right-wing, liberal and conservative streams. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism continue to spread in German society.

Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1945–2004

Anti-Semitism appears to be an essential part of the European cultural tradition, and in Germany, more or less conscious Jew-hatred exists by "tradition" as well. Former East Germany, and before that the Soviet Occupation Zone, never conducted a survey of anti-Semitism, and no data is available. Such surveys were, however, conducted in West Germany. In 1949, a quarter of the West German population described themselves as anti-Semites; in a 1952 survey, one-third said they were definitely anti-Semites.3

By 1980, however, the tracking of various population samples showed that anti-Semitism had decreased. Surveys conducted after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 revealed a huge gap in anti-Semitic attitudes between East and West Germany.4 Surprisingly, East Germany appeared to be very congenial to Jews with almost no anti-Semitism. This, however, was a fallacy related to the fact that many people and even researchers make a facile distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, despite the fact that scholars from the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism in Berlin5 pointed to the similarities. In addition, East Germans were used to saying what was officially required of them. And, as implied, anti-Zionism and attitudes toward Israel per se were not probed. Indeed, in subsequent surveys the gap between eastern and western Germany closed quickly.6

In May 2003, the Federal Office for Protecting the Constitution published a special study on anti-Semitism and its links with rightwing and neo-Nazi groups.7 The same institution recorded more than 1400 anti-Semitic crimes in 2001,8 confirming a steady rise including a 100 percent increase for Berlin. Anti-Israeli activities, however, such as attacks on the Israeli embassy, are not included in these reports because there is still no systematic monitoring of anti-Zionism.

In 2002, as the neoliberal FDP Party maligned Israel, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, and German Jewish leader Michel Friedman, anti-Semitism became an issue for the first time in a postwar German election campaign.

In April of that year, the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt am Main and the University of Leipzig confirmed a new height of anti-Semitism. In their joint study, 20 percent of the respondents agreed that "Jews are to blame for the major conflicts in the world," and another 26 percent shared this opinion to some extent.9

In May 2002, the weekly magazine Der Spiegel published a survey in which 25 percent agreed that "what the State of Israel does to the Palestinians is no different than what the Nazis did during the Third Reich to the Jews."10

As reported in 2003, studies now estimate overt anti-Semitism at around 23 percent, and covert anti-Semitism as existing among 30–40 percent of the German public.11

In 2002, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) in Vienna and the above-mentioned Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism conducted a study on "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the European Union: First Semester, 2002." In October 2003 the first version of the report was submitted to the EU, and by January 2004 the final report was in the hands of the EUMC, which kept the study - with the EU’s knowledge and approval - under lock and key. The research shows that, aside from the clear threat posed by "ordinary" right-wing anti-Semitism, Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups are also playing a crucial role. Furthermore, leftist and antiglobalization groups such as ATTAC were described as more or less anti-Semitic.12 The EUMC vaguely criticized the study, saying that "there was a problem defining anti-Semitism, the definition being too complicated," as a member of the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism told the author. Once again, anti-Zionism was treated as distinct from anti-Semitism.

In April 2004, as the Conference on Anti-Semitism in Europe took place in Berlin, the Stephen Roth Institute of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University revealed that the countries with the highest rates of anti-Semitic incidents in the world are Germany, France, Britain, Russia, and Canada.13 Compared to France or Britain, in Germany Islamic and pro-Palestinian groups are involved in only a very small percentage of anti-Semitic incidents: indigenous German anti-Semitism does not need "support" from others. Since there was never a time free of anti-Semitism, it is necessary to ask whether the current wave is really "new anti-Semitism" or centuries old anti-Semitism that has been "modernized" and adapted to the circumstances. Above all, it is a post-Auschwitz anti-Semitism. For many people, provided they are not Holocaust deniers or neo-Nazis, Auschwitz as the symbol of the Holocaust is the obstacle to expressing anti-Semitism and aversion to Jews and Israel. Hence Germans, like many other anti-Semites, use the "anti-Zionist" disguise. This enables declaring Israel "the most evil country" and "nazifying" Israel with comparisons to the Third Reich, or advocating that it vanish from the world’s stage. This, in turn, opens the door to proclaiming Jews to be evil people in general.

These manifestations of anti-Semitism in Germany are deeply linked to the German past from 1933 to 1945 and the wish to get rid of guilt or responsibility for dealing with that past. Germany’s ideological unification since 1989 has two main pillars: a strong anti-American and anti-Israeli attitude, and a new position toward the history of WW II.

Rewriting History

For more than fifteen years, German intellectuals, writers, politicians, and ordinary people have gradually worn down moral and political barriers that for decades kept the overwhelming majority away from open and extensive anti-Semitism.

It started with the Historikerstreit, a series of articles written in 1986, and did not end with the anti-Semitic election campaign in spring 2002. The Historikerstreit was mainly propelled by an article by the historian Ernst Nolte in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which portrayed the National Socialist state and its terror as only a reaction to the Bolshevik threat, and the persecution of Jews and the Shoah as not really singular in human history. (Jürgen Habermas, a representative of the Critical Theory school and intellectual descendant of Theodor Adorno, sharply protested Nolte’s claims.) Germany is a country with far more memorials and museums to the concentration camps, as well as Jewish museums, than other European countries. The volume of Holocaust education in schools and other educational institutions, the number of conferences and workshops devoted to the subject, seems close to unique in Europe. As Yehuda Bauer, chief historian of Yad Vashem, said in an interview:

Germany is most active in promoting Holocaust education for which there is a very good reason. Given their history, they understand the importance of education as a means of preventing future disasters. The Holocaust today serves as a symbol for what we ought to oppose: racism, genocide, mass murder, ethnic hatred, ethnic cleansing, anti-Semitism and group hatred.14
Nevertheless, the opposition to inhumanity in general is no obstacle to German anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Holocaust education in Germany may be intensive, but most of the textbooks use cliche's and stereotypes. Moreover, many of the teachers convey compassion for the murdered Jews along with strong reservations toward the Jews of today and, of course, the anti-Israeli attitude. Although Germany is proud of its well-developed culture of Holocaust remembrance and education, which for many years was seen as a force against anti-Semitism, the latter force has gone weak. It was a fallacy to think that knowledge about the Shoah would lead people to love their neighbors or even their Jewish neighbors. Holocaust education in Germany is being slowly but steadily undermined by the new trend of seeing Germans themselves as victims, with many people feeling that they are fed up with the Shoah.15 Well-intended rituals and remembrances have not proved an effective shield against anti-Semitism and the rewriting of history. This widespread "victim" trend in Germany needs to be monitored carefully, since in the long run it may lead to a rewriting of the history of WW II and, in the worst case, to a minimization of the Shoah.

The leading figure among the German "new historians" is Jörg Friedrich, who has published two books on the Allied bombings of Germany.16 The first book deals with the strategy of the Allied bombings and condemns them as inhuman and pointless. Friedrich’s popularized style helped this book become a bestseller. He uses terms that for decades were associated with Nazi persecution and the Shoah; thus, cellars and air-raid shelters in which Germans died are "crematoria," an RAF bomber group is an Einsatzgruppe, and the destruction of libraries during the bombings constitutes Bücherverbrennungen. In this way the Shoah is minimized through language.

Friedrich’s second book was also a bestseller and also depicts Germans as victims. There are no SA men, no SS, no soldiers involved in persecution, murder, and "aryanization." The book contains horrifying photos of the effects of the Allied bombings of Germany. Ruins, burnt bodies, and ashes everywhere evoke associations with the Warsaw Ghetto after its liquidation in 1943 and well-known images from Auschwitz and other extermination camps. Friedrich even declared openly, in several television interviews in winter 2002: "Churchill was the greatest child-slaughterer of all time. He slaughtered 76,000 children." Yet Friedrich, formerly known as a serious historian, never devotes a single word to the 1.5 million murdered Jewish children.

German historiography increasingly portrays Germans as victims in WW II and not as perpetrators, bystanders, or people deriving benefit from persecution. The revised perspective on German history - from the Allied bombings to the Germans’ expulsion from Poland and East European countries - undoubtedly reflects a historical consciousness that is newly embraced by the majority, though not new in itself. There was never any taboo on speaking about the Allied bombings or the postwar expulsions; documentaries, books, journals, and films have dealt with these subjects since the early 1950s, and WW II was commonly discussed in families and by certain organizations. What is new, however, is the public reinterpretation of history, encompassing intellectuals and politicians of both the Left and the Right.

From a Trickle to the Mainstream

A few examples will illustrate this trend. In Frankfurt in 1998, when he received the Peace Prize of German Publishers, the famous German writer Martin Walser gave a speech in which he expressed his weariness at being confronted with Auschwitz; he was supported by large numbers of Germans including intellectuals and politicians. Jews who spoke out in protest were almost on their own. Four years later in 2002, for 8 May - the day marking the liberation in 1945 - Walser was invited for a discussion with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on "Nation and Patriotism." Their dialogue focused on the question of whether the Allies of WW I were really the ones responsible for Hitler’s coming to power. Walser maintained that patriotism must be based on emotions and deeply rooted in history, and the German chancellor asserted: "The way we as Germans deal with our history shall be decided by each and every generation anew." The decision seems to have been made.

Since the second Palestinian uprising began in the fall of 2000, many consider that Israel is losing the media battle. The Israeli government is frequently blamed for not making its viewpoints known effectively. Pro-Israeli media watchers are an important source of information for their readers. But above all, they are private actors in the Arab-Israeli public relations war.

On 9 November 2002, the memorial day for Kristallnacht in 1938, German public television for the first time in years did not screen the usual quantity of movies and documentaries on this topic. The main news programs devoted about ten seconds to a historical review. Two documentaries were shown at around 11 p.m., one on Hitler’s secretary and the other, not broadcast on either of the two national channels but on three of the sixteen federal stations, on the Sonderkommando (Jews forced to work in the crematoria) in Auschwitz. However, this time the first national channel, ARD, presented the first episode of a three-part series on the German general Erwin Rommel and also the first episode of a six-part series on the SS, and although the SS was portrayed as a brutal organization its victims were absent.

On 17 November 2002, the Day of National Mourning, which is dedicated to soldiers and civilians who died in WW I and WW II, parliament held a four-hour ceremony. Tall black crosses were emplaced in the parliament despite the supposed separation of church and state. Between some classical music pieces, a young woman read from letters written in 1942 by German soldiers based in Stalingrad. During the whole ceremony there was not one word about war crimes, or about the army units that slaughtered Jews. ¨

Peter Sloterdijk, a German philosopher born in 1947, has stepped out of academia and become a star of German television. Since 2002 he has had his own show, Philosophical Quartet,17 in which he and his regular comrade Rüdiger Safranski, a philosopher and writer, host two other guests to discuss the latest issues. Sloterdijk is known for an elitist and anti-American attitude that goes hand in hand with a conservative view of the German past, a synthesis of leftist and rightist positions. His latest book, Airquake: At the Source of Terror18 recounts catastrophic events that for Sloterdijk are all similar: the Holocaust, the Allied bombings of Germany, the atomic bombing of Japan, and September 11 are the strange pearls on Sloterdijk’s string. He maintains that the source of all these catastrophes was the first attack with poison gas in WW I, which, he emphasizes, was primarily made possible by the German chemist Fritz Haber. With a cynical undertone Sloterdijk stresses the fact that Haber was Jewish, and then alleges a continuity between Haber’s experiments and the gas chambers during the Shoah. Although Sloterdijk does not make the connection explicitly, he implies a horrible conclusion: that without a Jewish chemist there would have been no Holocaust.

In November 2002 Sloterdijk invited to his show Luc Bondy, a theatrical director, to discuss the topic of anti-Semitism. Bondy told the audience: "After WW II, as small children, we were confronted with guilt. It was so massive. We as children in postwar times were under fire nearly nonstop and saw those pictures everywhere. My thesis is: the only possible way to get rid of anti-Semitism is therefore to be anti-Semitic again."19

These and many other popularized historical reinterpretations reflect the fact that Germany is on a path toward self-reconciliation. It is a reconciliation between the generations, as the gap that opened between the 1960s leftist movement and the parent generation, who were accused as participants in the war, is closed; and it is also a reconciliation between Left and Right. No longer do historical debates drive a wedge between Germans.

As Anne Applebaum has written:

The country’s collective conscience was enlightened by the TV-Series "Holocaust" to an extent that could never have been achieved by historical science and all its publications. What imperative message, fuelled by emotionalism, is carried by today’s self-reconciliation trend? The discussion on victimhood has now been extended to include the perpetrators. In the dispute over the planned "Centre against Expulsion," for example.20
The gates are wide open to a new cult of victimhood that minimizes - even without malicious intention - Germany’s guilt for the outbreak of war, its crimes against humanity (including those committed by German army units), as well as the uniqueness of the Holocaust.

Misusing the Shoah

The decreasing interest in the Holocaust does not prevent Germans from invoking it in political debates. The "lesson" that Germans now draw from WW II and the Holocaust is one of opposition to the United States and Israel.

It is often claimed that the German public has been sensitized to realities such as the 2003 war in Iraq or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by decades of education on German war crimes and the Shoah as a unique genocide. The Shoah is misused to oppose military conflicts, particularly if they are carried out by the United States or Israel against terror regimes, terror movements, and Islamic fundamentalism. Once a domain of the Left, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are now embraced by ordinary Germans, reinforced by the books on the Allied bombings and the like. The extreme Right, which normally is identified with xenophobic attitudes, has discovered its solidarity with Islamic and Palestinian "freedom fighters." Pro-Palestinian, anti-American, and anti-Semitic themes were common in the 2003 demonstrations against the war in Iraq.

Israel is condemned, but terrorist movements in Spain, Ireland, or Israel itself are not. The German public does not organize demonstrations after a bus bombing in Israel, but it does after a Hamas leader is killed. Israel, and hence "the Jews," are accused of horrendous behavior that is alleged to be even worse because they are "former victims." In other words, Israel and the Jews have not learned their lessons from the Shoah, whereas Germans have learned them thoroughly.

To clear themselves of the suspicion of being anti-Semitic, Germans accompany every castigation of Israel with the mantra that it is "only criticism" motivated by a just, democratic preference for peaceful solutions. The other side of this coin is their claim that because of the Holocaust, Germans have to side with today’s victims, namely, the Palestinians. Undoubtedly the best tactic, however, is to quote leftist Jews or Israelis to buttress their own views. Jewish witnesses are taken to court against Israel.21

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism Go Hand in Hand
This anti-Israeli attitude is state-of-the-art in parts of the German media.22 Photos and illustrated reports present the Israeli Goliath against the Palestinian David, Palestinian children against heavily armed Israeli soldiers. We see ruins of Palestinian buildings with distressed women and children standing in front of them, juxtaposed with settlers who live in green, opulent surroundings and act aggressively toward Palestinians.

A 2002 study showed that German media coverage of the Middle East is often characterized by a lack of context and hostile undertones against Israel. Not uncommonly, the Holocaust is minimized by comparing Israel with the Third Reich, blood libels are invoked regarding Palestinian children, and Zionist conspiracy theories are mentioned. The study concluded: "German media coverage of the conflict contributed to an anti-Semitic view of Israel among the German population."23

At the end of 2002, the Federal Centre for Civic Education in Bonn followed up with its own study, which concluded that "an important effect in media is to present Israel and its military power only to convey the impression that Israel is the aggressor."24 During the official presentation of this study, however, the results were distorted and played down. The opening lecture was by Werner Stüber of the University of Düsseldorf, who had lived many years in East Jerusalem and taught at Bir Zeit University. He did not say a sentence about Palestinian terror, but did speak of the "powerful Jewish lobby in the United States." An attempt to dispute this lecture was stifled with the words that the lecture backed the position of the Centre for Civic Education - which, seemingly, did not consider the results of its own study, and, incidentally, is directly connected to the German state. As the conference continued, the focus was not on anti-Semitic tendencies in German media but rather on Israel’s "aggression," "inhuman" behavior, and so on.

After the Jenin operation in April 2002, Süddeutsche Zeitung published a cartoon showing Sharon in front of an Israeli tank that was identified as Jewish-Israeli with a Star of David. To the left of the tank was a bulldozer carrying away dozens of dead, emaciated bodies. UN staff were trying to approach, but Sharon shouted at them, "Go away, this is war!" The bulldozer with the dead bodies is a clear association with images from the liberated extermination camps, in which thousands of dead bodies were carried by bulldozers into mass graves. The simple message of the cartoon is that "the Jews" are Nazis. As Deidre Berger, head of the American Jewish Committee in Germany, noted succinctly, "Israel is under fire in the German media."25

Conclusion

There are various facets of anti-Semitism in Germany today:

Pre-Auschwitz anti-Semitism, found above all in neo-Nazi circles
Neo-Nazi anti-Semitism, typically combining Islamism and anti-Zionism
Neoliberal anti-Semitism, combining massive anti-Israeli attitudes and resistance to both financial and moral responsibility for the Holocaust
Leftist anti-Semitism, hand in hand with anti-imperialist and antiglobalization attitudes
Anti-Semitism disguised by general, reflexive “criticism” of Israeli policies
Anti-Semitism and, hence, anti-Zionism as part of the new German claim of having been victims in WW II
There are no effective, large-scale activities against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and the majority of Germans would not support them. Although certain individuals and organizations try to put the problem on the agenda, this is much more cosmetics than a successful strategy.

As the historian Julius Schöps of Potsdam University put it in the newspaper Tageszeitung:

Protests against anti-Semitism, organized by small groups, do not get extensive attention in Germany. Resolutions by the German parliament to reject anti-Semitism are drivel of the worst kind....But all those ineffective actions are presented to the world as a strong defense against the charge of anti-Semitism. The truth is: no one is really interested in these matters. No one really cares.26
* * *

Notes
1. This article is based on a lecture presented at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on 11 May 2004.
2. Jean Améry, "Der ehrbare Antisemitismus," Die Zeit, 25 July 1969 (German).
3. See Werner Bergmann and Rainer Erb, Antisemitismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ergebnisse der empirischen Forschung von 1946–1989 (Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 1991) (German).
4. Bernhard Prosch, Reinhard Wittenberg, and Martin Abraham, "Antisemitismus in der ehemaligen DDR. Überraschende Ergebnisse der ersten Repräsentativ-Umfrage und einer Befragung von Jugendlichen in Jena," Tribüne, No. 118 (1991), 102–120; Emnid, for the American Jewish Committee, 1991 (German). ¨
5. Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung, Technical University (TU), Berlin. Its director, Prof. Wolfgang Benz, is a renowned scholar in this field. Prof. Walter Berg, a member of the Institute, already decades ago pointed to the similarities between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in his research.
6. Surveys were conducted, e.g., by Emnid in 1994 (Zentralarchiv für empirische Sozialforschung, Cologne, No. 2418), Infratest Burke (1996), Forsa (1998), and Infratest Sozialforschung (2002), and published, e.g., in the weeklies Der Spiegel, Stern, and Die Woche.
7. Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, "Die Bedeutung des Antisemitismus im aktuellen deutschen Rechtsextremismus," 20 May 2003. See http://www.verfassungsschutz. de (German).
8. Ibid., p. 40.
9. Elmar Brähler and Horst Eberhard Richter, "Politische Einstellungen in Deutschland. Einstellungen zu Juden, Amerikanern und Arabern," results of a representative survey conducted in spring 2002. A press conference was held at the Sigmund Freud Institute in Frankfurt am Main, 14 June 2002 (German).
10. Der Spiegel, May 2002 (German).
11. "Unser Verhältnis zu den Juden" (a survey by FORSA), Stern, No. 48 (2003) (German).
12. The EUMC website now presents the study and some additional material, http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php?fuseaction>content.dsp–cat–content& catid>1.
13. See Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University, http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/.
14. Manfred Gerstenfeld, "From Propagating Myths to Research: Preparing for Holocaust Education - An Interview with Yehuda Bauer," in Europe’s Crumbling Myths (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Yad Vashem, World Jewish Congress, 2003), Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 3, December 1, 2002, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, p. 1, p. 119.
15. A 1998 survey found two-thirds of Germans over age 14 saying there should be an end to discussions of Nazi rule and the Shoah. See Harald Welzer, Opa war kein Nazi (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, 2002) (German). The study concluded that a high percentage of Germans tell myths about the years 1933–1945 and try to disguise their own role while claiming that there was no anti-Semitism and much resistance.
16. Jörg Friedrich, Der Brand. Deutschland im Bombenkrieg (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag, 2002), and Brandstätten (Berlin: Propyläen Verlag, 2003) (German).
17. See the TV channel’s website, http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde?inhalt/8/0,1872, 1021352,00.html (German).
18. Peter Sloterdijk, Luftbeben. An der Quelle des Terrors (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2002) (German).
19. See http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/23/0,1872,2021239,00.html, and, there, the link to "Zitate aus der sendung" ("Quotes from the Show") (German).
20. Anne Applebaum, "Germans as Victims," International Herald Tribune, 15 October 2003.
21. See Susanne Urban, "Friend or Foe? Jewish Self-Degradation and Its Misuse by Anti-Semites in Contemporary Germany," Nativ Online, http://www.acpr. org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/03-issue/urban-3.htm, and the printed issue, Nativ, June 2004 (Ariel Center for Policy Research).
22. There have been some analyses of the anti-Israeli media coverage, e.g., "Medientenor," Tribüne, No. 162 (Frankfurt am Main: Tribüne Verlag, 2002), p. 93. (German).
23. This survey was conducted by the Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung (DISS) for the German office of the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and published in 2002. See http://www.ajc.org/german/israel–medien.-asp, where many more articles on this topic are available (German).
24. On 9–10 December 2002, they held a conference called "Learn to Be Suspicious about Pictures" on media coverage of Israel and the Palestinians, during which the Bundeszentrale presented its study, "Nahostberichterstattung in den Hauptnachrichten des deutschen Fernsehens," http://www.bpb.de (German).
25. Deidre Berger, in the presentation of the study conducted together with DISS (see n. 24) in Berlin, 1 May 2002.
26. Julius Schöps, "Antisemitismus ist Teil dieser Kultur," Taz, 25 October 2002. See http://www.berlin-judentum.de/bildung/antisemitismusforschung.htm (German).

* * *
DR. SUSANNE URBAN is a historian whose current research, along with the subject of contemporary German anti-Semitism, deals with the topic of Youth Aliyah (an organization for Jewish children's immigration to Israel) during the Holocaust. She is affiliated with the Hebrew University and was a research fellow at Yad Vashem in 2004. She is also preparing a book on Jews at the Volkswagen factory in 1944-1945.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Poll of Italians

From ANSAmed:

2007-07-11 18:18
ANSAmed
ITALY: INTEGRATION WITH ARAB IMMIGRANTS DECLINES ***

(ANSAmed) - MILAN, JULY 11 - There is more fear and distrust in Italian cities about immigrants identified as 'Arab', or those coming from Islamic cultures. With the drop of opinions in favour for granting these immigrants the right to vote in local elections, a strong rise in opposition to the construction of mosques, and a progressive decline of those who see favourably the formation of mixed couples. These are the results of a study carried out by the Milan Chamber of Commerce in Milan, Bologna, Rome, Naples and Palermo. According to a representative sample of the population, the opinions in favour of the opening of a new mosque fell to 28% against 48% last year. The motivations of the 'no' are various: according to 30% of those against "public money could be better spent", 28% think that Islam is "a dangerous religion which does not allow integration", 24% of those against clearly speak of mosques as "gatherings of terrorists." The favouring to granting the right to vote in local administration for immigrants regularly present for 10 years is in vertical fall in the Italian cities: in 2005 a total 63% were in favour, last year 51%, in this year's polls only 28%. As many as 60% of the people against the right to local elections vote explain their position with the fact that "they don't have Italian citizenship yet", 13% because the immigrants "are not part of our system and of our society", 12% think that "they are not perfectly integrated even after 10 years." According to the research carried out on the occasion of the forthcoming Euro-Mediterranean conference of Milan, scheduled for Monday with the participation of Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, among others, the opinions in favour of the 'mixed couples' are also down: they were 72% in 2005, 68% last year, now they are 52%. Moreover, half of the polled by CedCamera do not point out what activity they would be ready to launch no matter if the person is Italian or Arab and 25% say they have major distrust compared to a year ago towards Muslim immigrants, against 60% who do not reveal a different attitude and 1% who say they have less distrust today as regards the 'Arabs.' The fear of attacks is more clear: passing near crowded public areas, such as train stations, underground stops or trade centres, 54% of residents of Milan, Bologna, Rome, Naples and Palermo say they feel less safe compared to a year ago, 22% feel the same fears and 22% did not answer. Only 0.4% of the residents of the five big cities say they feel more safe today compared to a year ago.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Quote regarding Britain, Italy and Islam

From Newsmax:

Europe Grows Hostage to Its Muslims
NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, July 10, 2003
by Uwe Siemon-Netto, UPI religion editor

Quotes:

"Consider: In Manchester, England, a radical Muslim who does not even speak English has been elected to the city council, where he needs an interpreter.

Consider: According to the German media, secret Shari'a courts appear to be meting out "justice" in Italy."

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Fremtidens befolkning i Norge

Från Aftenposten:

Fremtidens befolkning i Norge

FREMTIDENS NORGE. Kan etniske nordmenn bli en minoritet i Norge? Spørsmålet er blitt diskutert med styrke i norsk offentlighet. Svaret er at det kan skje i midten eller slutten av vårt århundre. Men det er stor usikkerhet knyttet til tallene.
OLE JØRGEN ANFINDSEN
Først publisert: 30.01.06 | Oppdatert: 30.01.06 kl. 00:37

Citat:

"INNVANDRERBEFOLKNING. I desember presenterte Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB) nye befolkningsfremskrivninger for Norge frem mot 2060 (www.ssb.no/innvfram/). Dette er blitt omtalt i de fleste riksdekkende aviser, men jeg har foreløpig ikke registrert noen dyptpløyende artikler om emnet.

En slik behandling av stoffet er imidlertid påkrevd av både demokratiske og intellektuelle grunner, for konsekvensene av den utviklingen SSB beskriver, kommer til å bli store. La oss se nærmere på hva tallene egentlig forteller.

Det SSB har gjort, er å velge ut visse alternative forutsetninger. Så har byrået brukt sine matematiske modeller for å beregne hva resultatet vil bli, gitt disse forutsetningene.

Fremtidsscenarier.

For å kunne avgjøre hvilke av SSBs alternative fremtidsscenarier som er de mest realistiske, må man altså bedømme sannsynligheten knyttet til de alternative forutsetningene for de ulike variablene.

Det er ikke så vanskelig som man kanskje skulle tro, for ifølge SSB er det bare én variabel som virkelig har betydning: "Det er forutsetningene om nettoinnvandring som styrer (det fremtidige innvandrertallet), mens det vi oppfatter som sannsynlige variasjoner i fruktbarhet og dødelighet betyr lite i denne sammenhengen."

De neste 55 år.

Så hva er sannsynlige verdier for nettoinnvandringen de neste 55 årene?

SSB har lagt tre alternative nivåer for denne variabelen til grunn for sine fremskrivninger. Lavalternativet (L) forutsetter at nettoinnvandringen synker fra dagens nivå og etter 2010 stabiliserer seg på 9000 per år i snitt. Mellomalternativet (M) forutsetter at nettoinnvandringen holder seg på dagens nivå med 16 000 per år. Høyalternativet (H) forutsetter at nettoinnvandringen stiger fra dagens nivå og etter 2010 stabiliserer seg på 24 000 per år i snitt.

Det er altså interessant å spørre hvor sannsynlig det er at forutsetningene for alternativ L, M og H vil slå til. Litt forenklet kan vi si at de to første alternativene bare kan bli virkelighet dersom innvandrerne mister interessen for å komme hit, eller vi foretar en dramatisk omlegging av innvandringspolitikken.

Så lenge våre politikere fastholder dagens kurs, er det sannsynligvis bare det høye alternativet som har interesse når vi ser mer enn 10-20 år fremover i tid.

Innvandring gir mer innvandring.

For selv om årlig nettoinnvandring kanskje ikke vil komme opp på 24 000 allerede fra 2010, så kan vi være ganske sikre på at den vil overstige dette litt lenger frem i tid. Det viser seg nemlig at nettoinnvandringen øker i takt med antall innvandrere som allerede er kommet hit.

SSB kommenterer dette fenomenet slik: "Denne trenden reflekterer den økende nettoinnvandringen til Norge de siste 30-40 år. Det ser imidlertid ut som om denne veksten har skjedd ved skift til nye og høyere platåer. (Vi ser) at innvandringsnivået var på 5000 rundt 1980, om lag 10 000 på 1990-tallet, og ca. 15 000 rundt år 2000".

Vi må altså ta høyde for at nettoinnvandringen kan fortsette å vokse hele tiden frem mot 2060, noe som vil gi enda høyere tall enn de SSB nå har lagt frem. Det som er viktig er imidlertid ikke de eksakte tallene, men hovedtendensen i utviklingen, som ifølge SSB er "sterk vekst i innvandrerbefolkningen".

Hva er en innvandrer?

Forøvrig må vi ha klart for oss hva SSB mener når de forteller oss at Norge vil ha så og så mange "innvandrere" i fremtiden. SSB benytter nemlig følgende definisjon: "Innvandrerbefolkningen består av personer med to utenlandsfødte foreldre".

Enkelt sagt betyr det at tredje- og fjerdegenerasjonsinnvandrere ikke regnes som innvandrere. Det betyr også at dersom en andregenerasjonsinnvandrer finner seg en ektefelle fra sitt opprinnelsesland, slik tendensen gjerne er, så vil parets eventuelle barn heller ikke regnes som innvandrere.

Nordmenn en minoritet.

Men om man er interessert i å få en idé om hvor stor andel av befolkningen i Norge som etter hvert vil utgjøres av innvandrerne og deres etterkommere, er det forholdsvis enkelt. SSBs fremskrivning viser nemlig at Norge med høy nettoinnvandring vil ha en befolkning på godt over syv millioner i 2060. Studerer man de bakenforliggende tallene, ser man at etniske nordmenn vil utgjøre ca. fire av disse millionene, mens drøye tre millioner vil være innvandrere og etterkommere av innvandrere.

Dermed har SSB svart på et spørsmål som har versert i norsk offentlighet lenge, og med ekstra stor styrke i 2005: Når vil etniske nordmenn bli en minoritet her i landet? Og svaret er altså at det kan skje i midten eller slutten av vårt århundre. SSB understreker imidlertid at det er stor usikkerhet knyttet til tallene, noe som selvsagt kan slå begge veier. Min egen vurdering er at denne usikkerheten sannsynligvis vil gi opphav til raskere heller enn mer langsomme endringer.

Muslimsk Vest-Europa.

Det er ikke lenge siden slike fremtidsutsikter ble avfeid som feberfantasier eller det som verre er, men utviklingen er den samme i mange andre land, og SSB får støtte fra en rekke fagfolk som påpeker at Vest-Europa vil få muslimsk befolkningsflertall om noen tiår.

Timothy Savage skriver i artikkelen "Europe and Islam" i The Washington Quarterly sommeren 2004: "Hvis trenden fortsetter, vil det være flere muslimer enn ikke-muslimer i Frankrike og muligens hele Vest-Europa innen 2050".

Og i artikkelen "A Crescent Over Europe?" i Air Force Magazine i juli 2005, siteres professor Niall Ferguson fra New York University slik: "Hele Vest-Europa er nå på vei inn i en epoke med demografiske endringer som savner sidestykke i moderne historie".

Det kan også nevnes som et apropos at Wall Street Journal 4. januar i år, gjennom sitt bilag Opinion Journal, publiserte artikkelen "It's the Demography, Stupid", om utviklingen i Vest-Europa. Denne tegner et enda mer dramatisk bilde enn ovennevnte kilder."

"Uønskede perspektiver.

Både undertegnede og andre har de siste årene kritisert Statistisk sentralbyrå for ikke å ha gitt gode nok demografiske fremskrivninger. Etter min vurdering har byrået nå i det store og hele gjenopprettet tilliten.

Så spørs det hvordan politikere, intellektuelle og medier reagerer. Skal vi fortsette å undertrykke uønskede perspektiver på et område der de etiske dilemmaene står i kø, eller skal vi begynne å gjøre disse spørsmålene til gjenstand for den drøftelse og analyse de fortjener?"

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Poll: Mexicans Say Southwest U.S. Belongs to Them; Shouldn't Need Permission to Enter U.S.

From Americans for Immigration Control:

For Immediate Release June 11, 2002

New Zogby Poll

Mexicans Say Southwest U.S. Belongs to Them;
Shouldn't Need Permission to Enter U.S.
Download Full Report
(160 KB MSword doc)
Americans and Mexicans have widely divergent views of border issues, according to a new poll by Zogby International.
Zogby found that a large majority of the Mexican population believes the southwest territory of the U.S. rightfully belongs to Mexico, and that Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without first obtaining U.S. permission. By contrast, Zogby's survey of Americans conducted within a few days of the Mexican poll shows a large majority supports reducing immigration levels and wants the military deployed along the border to protect the U.S. from illegal immigration.

Zogby's poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagree, and 14 percent are unsure.

A similar majority, 57 percent, agree with the statement, "Mexicans should have the right to enter the U.S. without U.S. permission," while 35 percent disagree. Seven percent are unsure.

The survey has a margin of error of 3.5 percent. The Mexico portion of the survey was conducted in Spanish between May 25 and May 26 among 801 adults chosen at random throughout Mexico. The poll was commissioned by Americans for Immigration Control, Inc. (AIC), which advocates increased restrictions on immigration.

"There is obviously a large and significant gap between the attitudes of Americans and Mexicans," said Robert Goldsborough, AIC president. "While most Americans want immigration reduced, most Mexicans think they don't even need permission to enter our country. The poll clearly shows there is less common ground for immigration negotiations between Mexico and the U.S. than the leaders think. Support for a porous border and a loose migration policy occurs only on the Mexican side, not in the U.S."

Zogby's survey of American attitudes found wide majorities of Americans also oppose amnesty for illegal aliens. The U.S. portion of the survey was conducted of 1,015 likely voters in the U.S. from May 28 to May 30. It found that 65 percent disagree with the statement, "foreigners residing illegally in the U.S. should be given amnesty." Just 26 percent of likely voters support amnesty for illegals, while 9 percent are unsure.

A large majority, 58 percent, agree that the U.S. should "admit fewer immigrants each year." Only 6 percent want "more immigrants each year," and 30 percent want to "keep immigration at the current annual levels."

The single largest majority in the entire poll was found among Americans supporting use of the military to guard the border. Fully 68 percent of those surveyed agree with the statement, "the U.S. should deploy military troops on the border as a temporary measure to help the U.S. Border Patrol curb illegal immigration." Only 28 percent disagree, and 3 percent are unsure.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

A piece on leftist antisemitism in Sweden

In this context I suggest you furthermore read these (now inactive) blogs:

Digital resistance against Arabist propaganda in SWEDEN

Simulev-Swedish anti-Israel bias!

Leftist Anti-Semitism in Sweden
By Scandimerican
http://liberatesweden.blogspot.com/2007/01/leftist-anti-semitism-in-sweden-part-i.html Friday, January 19, 2007

Quotes:

"A recent, very typical example is the protests against Israel's participation in the European Athletics Championships in Sweden in August last year. Israel is banned from Asian championships, which is why it participates in Europe instead.

Usually no one has a real problem with this. But this time the Israelis faced the Swedish edge-of-sanity left – led by the politically influential Left Party – which are also behind a Boycott Israel campaign. This campaign claims that Israel is a racist nation and that it is not a democracy.

But it also has supporters within the Social Democrats themselves, where several candidates in last year's national elections asked the government to expel Israel’s ambassador.

Then Swedish prime minister, Mr. Goran Persson, indirectly supported this campaign. On July 31 he and his foreign minister sharply criticized Israel for its latest defensive actions in Lebanon, without even mentioning Hezbollah’s decades long campaign of terror against Israel.

The social democratic party's youth league, SSU, is raising money for Palestinian groups without the slightest concern for if their money will end up funding homicide bombers and Katyusha rockets.

Protests of anti-Semitic nature are becoming more frequent in Sweden. The groups behind them are also turning increasingly violent. Sweden has a disturbing track record of public disorder and the problem is getting worse. These radical, revolutionary leftist groups are strongly pro-Palestinian and anti-American and will by all likelihood ramp up their anti-Semitic campaigns in the future, especially if the conflict in the Middle East escalates.

Perhaps the most terrifying perspective in Swedish anti-Semitism is the fact that the anti-Semitic, edge-of-sanity left have hi-jacked the Kristallnacht anniversary and turned it into a stage for rants against Israel and opened it for anti-Semitic organizations. Their contempt for Jews, Judaism and Israel cannot be more explicit. If any non-religious day of the year is sacred to Jews, it is the Kristallnacht anniversary of November 10. In 1938 that date marked the second night of Nazi organized violence against Germany’s Jewish population. It resulted in thousands of casualties and vandalized or destroyed property: businesses, homes, synagogues, cemeteries.

One would imagine that anyone who is against racism would yield November 10 to Jewish commemoration, and perhaps even express sympathy.

Not so in Sweden. The Kristalnacht commemoration in 2003 marked a turning point. Since then the left has deliberately occupied the Kristalnacht day and leading radical groups have organized events that marked a turning point in how the Kristallnacht day is “celebrated” in Sweden.

In Gothenburg, on November 10, 2003, several left wing groups organized a march against racism. At the same time, members of the local Jewish community had gathered in a public place for their annual commemoration ceremony. But instead of coordinating with the Jewish event, the left wing groups located their event to another part of central Gothenburg, purposely putting considerable distance between themselves and the Jews.

The same day another anti-Israel and anti-Jewish event took place in Uppsala, Sweden’s fourth largest city and home to one of Europe’s most renowned universities. A seminar was organized by "Uppsala Fredskoalition", Uppsala Peace Coalition. This Coalition’s members consist of 38 political parties and interest groups, ranging from the Swedish support group for the radical Islamist magazine al-Quds, to the three political parties that formed and supported the previous government: the Social Democrats, the Left Party and the Green Party. (They lost the September election to a center-right coalition.)

A half dozen Islamist organizations are also among the members, but notably not one single Jewish group.

In its platform the Coalition openly declares its anti-American and anti-Israel stance:

"What unites us is that we oppose the increasingly active role of the United States as world police with right to ‘preventive’ wars after September 11, 2001, which among other things has resulted in the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. We also oppose the policy of Israel, the foremost U.S. ally in the Middle East, that leads to occupation and diaspora among peoples."

The diaspora reference – masked in the original Swedish text by a slightly milder term with the same meaning – is obviously chosen to accuse Israel of stealing Palestinian land and driving the Palestinians out of their country. Such accusations are, of course, untrue, but it is a clear provocation that they are made on Kristallnacht commemoration day.

One of the speakers, Samaa Sarsour from the Palestine People’s Association, openly advocated the destruction of Israel as a state:

"Samaa Sarsour from Palestinian People’s Association explained what she thinks it would take for violence [in the Middle East] to come to an end. – One democratic state where Jews and Palestinians can live side by side."

As lip service to a "balance" of opinions, the seminar was also addressed by Izzy Young from Jews for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. This organization’s main proposal for an end to violence in the Middle East is that Israel stops defending itself. Not surprisingly, it is at odds with Jewish congregations in Sweden. It is also an affiliate of European Jews for Justice and Peace,whose platform advocates “recognition by Israel of its part in the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem”. EJJP also “supports non violent action aimed at ending the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and Israeli breaches of international law” and “calls upon all states to ensure that their relations with Israel are in accordance with international law”.

In short, EJJP – and its Swedish affiliate – blame Israel for Palestinian terrorism against Israel.

To further underscore the left’s intent to steal the Kristallnacht day, the Uppsala seminar also heard an address by Sören Abramsson from International Solidarity Movement. This strongly pro-Palestinian organization is also openly anti-Semitic.

To top it off, the seminar gave time to Eugene Makhluf, at the time Palestinian “general delegate”, de facto ambassador, to Stockholm.

More anti-Israel activities on Kristallnacht day in 2003 took place in Malmö, Sweden’s third largest city. The governing Social Democratic party sponsored a meeting together with a migration-oriented magazine, Mana. At that time, Mana had just published an issue where it launched its "information campaign on Israel’s human rights crimes".

Among many attacks on Israel and hints of anti-Semitism, the magazine reprinted an article from al-Ahram Weekly by professor Edward Said, an apologist for Palestinian terrorism against Jews. In Mana he was given yet another opportunity to lash out against the Bush administration’s plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power and liberate the Iraqi people from his ruthless tyranny.

After having published this tirade of anti-Semitism, Mana was given an opportunity to co-sponsor an event on Kristallnacht day with Sweden's governing political party.

Two months after the 2003 anti-Semitic push from Sweden’s left, Israel’s ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, attacked and destroyed a pro-terrorist art installation at a major museum in Stockholm. The artist, an Israeli expatriate, had created a controversial installation called “Snow White”. A white boat with a picture of a female Palestinian suicide bomber – who had killed 21 people at a café in Haifa three months earlier – was floating in red colored, blood like water. The installation was accompanied by a text that romanticized the suicide bomber. Mr. Mazel was so infuriated that he short-circuited the "work of art" by throwing a spotlight into the red water. His acts are easily explained given the widespread, open anti-Semitism in Sweden.

Since 2003 the Swedish left has solidified the presence of anti-Israel events on Kristallnacht anniversaries. As a testimony to this, on November 10, 2005 the Left Party’s youth league, Young Left, organized events in cooperation with Revolutionary Communist Youth, RKU. This organization, which openly advocates a Communist revolution, is fiercely anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian terrorism and has for several years been a bullhorn for Palestinian terror propaganda.

Sweden has also seen a surge in leftist anti-Semitic violence. A rare recognition of this was an October 3, 2005 op-ed in Dagens Nyheter, a large Swedish daily, by Cecilia Wikström, a member of parliament for the centrist Liberal Party:

"Both research reports and individual Jews bear witness of the change in character of anti-Semitism [in Sweden]. The perpetrators are no longer just right wing extreme groups. Radical leftist and Islamist organizations are spreading anti-Semitic propaganda and participating in acts of violence against Jews. Mostly it comes to harassment, such as verbal assaults and intimidating letters, but it also takes the shape of desecrations of cemeteries, destroying property and assaulting Jews out in the street in Sweden. The spring of 2002 was the first time in 150 years when a mob in Sweden attacked Jews. A number of people were assaulted and beaten at Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm to the chant ‘Death to the Jews’, by so called anti-racists."

Perhaps the left’s refusal to recognize this anti-Semitic violence explains why they are so quick to criticize Israel without mentioning with one word the violence against Israel from, e.g., Hezbollah. This past summer the politically influential Left Party’s chairman, Mr. Lars Ohly, called for participation in anti-Israel rallies. His rhetoric was a complete barrage against Israel:

"Israel has now bombed Beirut’s airport [and] threatened attacks on suburbs of the Lebanese capital. In a commentary they have urged part of Beirut evacuated because a few Hezbollah leaders live there. This is unreasonable. It is one of the worst kinds of openly declared collective punishment in a long time, and it is a blatant crime against the People’s Rights [as declared in the UN Human Rights charter]. Israel has also put Lebanon under sea and air blockade. This is an act of war. It is not Lebanon that should be under blockade, it is Israel that must now be criticized and isolated by the world community."

Mr. Ohly’s omission of the fact that Hezbollah was (and still is) firing missiles in over Israel every day, speaks for itself. He also forgets that Lebanon’s government – and the United Nations, who has “observers” (birdwatchers?) in south Lebanon – have allowed the Islamist terror group to build an enormous stockpile of rockets and weapons over a period of several years. Apparently, allowing such activities within one’s territory, with the explicit purpose to inflict maximum damage on a neighboring country, is not reason enough for criticism, let alone call for boycott.

One of the rallies that Mr. Ohly was calling for was also co-sponsored by International Solidarity Movement.

Leading Left Party members of the Swedish parliament – the Riksdag – openly support a boycott of Israel, calling Israel "murderers" and strongly supporting the campaign against Israel’s participation in the athletics championships. Of course, they never mention the extremist agendas of Hezbollah and Hamas..." (IceViking: and Fatah under Mahmoud Abbas or Yassir Arafat for instance) "...and that the terrorists still launched attack after attack against Israel.""

"It goes on and on. The chairperson of the Young Left, Ms. Ida Gabrielsson, ups the ante:

"Israel has in a dramatic way escalated its aggression against its neighboring countries’ sovereignty as well as the rights and honorable living conditions of hundreds of thousands of people. With the excuse of ‘self defense’ civilians in Lebanon as well as the Gaza strip are bombed and killed. Meanwhile the Israeli military is purposely destroying the infrastructure that constitutes a necessary condition for people to be able to live in the attacked areas. The only decent act from the rest of the world is to strongly protest the Israeli actions and clearly take a stand for the right of the occupied and attacked people to defend themselves."

In other words, the Young Left, which is organizing events on Kristallnacht day every year, supports terrorism against Israel.

This is an organization with many members in Sweden's national parliament. It received large funds of tax money to support its daily operations, its propaganda and its anti-Israeli activities."


IceViking comments:

Regarding this quote by Ida Gabrielsson:

"Israel has in a dramatic way escalated its aggression against its neighboring countries’ sovereignty as well as the rights and honorable living conditions of hundreds of thousands of people. With the excuse of ‘self defense’ civilians in Lebanon as well as the Gaza strip are bombed and killed. Meanwhile the Israeli military is purposely destroying the infrastructure that constitutes a necessary condition for people to be able to live in the attacked areas. The only decent act from the rest of the world is to strongly protest the Israeli actions and clearly take a stand for the right of the occupied and attacked people to defend themselves."

Israel does not intentionally target civilians. Whenever civilians get killed it is as a consequense of self-defence by the Israelis against terrorists.

Ny undersökning: Svenska ungdomars dåliga kunskaper om kommunismen

Läs mera på UOKs hemsida här.

Från Dagens Nyheter :

daterad 9 maj 00:50

"Ungdomar har obefintlig kunskap om kommunism"
Ny Demoskopundersökning: 90 procent av svenska ungdomar känner inte till Sovjetkommunismens dödsläger. Knappt tjugo år efter Berlinmurens och Sovjetväldets fall vet svenska ungdomar förskräckande lite om kommunismen, om nutidshistorien och om våra grannländer. Det visar en ny landsomfattande undersökning om kunskapsnivån hos skolungdomar i åldrarna 15-20 år som opinionsinstitutet Demoskop har genomfört åt UOK, Föreningen för upplysning om kommunismen. Skrämmande många ungdomar tror att kommunismen inte skördat några dödsoffer, medan det i verkligen rör sig om hundra miljoner döda. Bortåt varannan anser att kommunismen bidragit till ökat globalt välstånd. Detta alarmerande undersökningsresultat visar att en omedelbar kraftansträngning behövs för att förbättra det oacceptabla kunskapsläget i skolan, skriver Anders Hjemdahl och Camilla Andersson, grundare av UOK.

Citat:

"Men vad vet vi egentligen om våra återfunna grannländer, de som vi under så lång tid inte talade om? Deras erfarenheter av nutidshistorien skiljer sig radikalt från vår.

Freden i väst den 9 maj 1945 innebar inte fred och frihet i öst. Då länderna i västra Europa befriades från den nazityska diktaturen av brittiska och amerikanska styrkor och ett gigantiskt återuppbyggnads- och demokratiseringsarbete kunde ta sin början, ockuperades våra grannländer och de övriga länderna i östra Europa ännu en gång.

Den fruktade Röda armén befriade aldrig någon från förtryck - den införde bara ännu en våldets diktatur, som inte stod den nazistiska efter i terror och brutalitet. För människorna i våra grannländer på andra sidan Östersjön och för folken i de övriga postkommunistiska länderna i östra och centrala Europa är den 9 maj en sorgens dag, då en lång diktaturens natt föll. Detta förtryck kom att vara i nära ett halvt sekel, och som på flera håll - bland annat i Estland och Lettland - var ytterst nära att fullständigt utplåna hela länders och folks existens och identitet.

För våra grannländer kom inte den verkliga freden i det andra världskriget förrän 1994, då de sista ryska ockupationstrupperna äntligen drogs bort. Totalt beräknas 100 miljoner människor världen över ha fått sätta livet till på grund av kommunistiskt förtryck - därav många tiotusental i vår omedelbara närhet. Många fler tvingades leva sina liv i förtryck, i total avsaknad av de fri- och rättigheter vi svenskar tar för självklara.

Dessa upplevelser har givetvis satt en mycket djup prägel på våra grannländer. För oss svenskar, som från första parkett i trygghet och frihet kunde bevittna förtrycket av människor bara ett dussin mil från våra kuster, åligger det ett särskilt ansvar att känna till och lära oss av historien. Vi har sluppit de dyrköpta erfarenheterna av att tvingas försvara vår sjävständighet"

"Under mycket lång tid präglades det svenska samhället av tystnad kring terror och förtryck av våra grannländer. Det så omtalade svenska engagemanget för utsatta människor världen över och för alla folks rätt till självbestämmande gällde uppenbarligen inte våra egna grannländer. Deras gränser och namn retuscherades bort från de svenska skolkartorna och vi vände dem ryggen för att istället blicka västerut. De nämndes inte i radio, tv eller i tidningarna förrän Sovjetimperiet började rämna.

Denna tystnad satte djupa spår i det svenska samhället, men nu har snart tjugo år passerat sedan järnridån och Sovjetimperiet föll samman. En ny generation svenskar har nu fått lära sig om världen och är på väg ut i vuxenlivet med sina kunskaper.

Vad vet dessa unga EU-medborgare om de händelser och ideologier som präglat Europas historia, och vad vet de om sin egen region?

För att undersöka kunskapsläget bland svenska skolungdomar har UOK nyligen uppdragit åt Demoskop att genomföra en landsomfattande undersökning av skolungdomars kunskaper om kommunismen, nutidshistorien och våra grannländer i åldrarna 15-20 år.

Resultatet av undersökningen, som genomfördes 16-22 februari och omfattar 1004 personer, visar på en förskräckande låg kunskapsnivå.

95 procent känner till Auschwitz - men 90 procent känner inte till Gulag.

90 procent vet inte vilken utländsk huvudstad som ligger närmast Stockholm.

50 procent vet inte att Berlin är huvudstad i ett land vid Östersjön.

82 procent tror inte att Vitryssland är en diktatur.

56 procent av grundskoleeleverna svarar "Vet ej" på frågan om de anser att samhällen baserade på västerländsk marknadsekonomi är demokratiska.

43 procent tror, att det totala antalet offer för kommunismen under nittonhundratalet är en miljon eller färre. En femtedel tror, att det är inga alls eller färre än tio tusen.

40 procent anser att kommunismen bidragit till ökat välstånd i världen.

22 procent anser att kommunismen är ett demokratiskt samhällskick.

Begreppet kollektivisering ses som positivt och associeras till exempel med "kollektivtrafik", "att göra saker tillsammans", "alla får det lika bra".

Undersökningen visar dessutom på en mycket stor osäkerhet bland eleverna vad gäller innebörden och av grundläggande begrepp som demokrati och diktatur."

"Resultat som dessa borde vara fullständigt oacceptabla i ett demokratiskt samhällle, där skolan sägs ha en "viktig uppgift att när det gäller att förmedla och hos eleverna förankra de grundläggande värden som vårt samhällsliv vilar på" (Ur inledningen till den aktuella läroplanen för grundskolan och gymnasiet, Lpo94).

Hur ska svenska ungdomar kunna förstå sina grannar i det nya Europa eller förstå vad som händer i omvärlden, om de inte vet vare sig var våra grannländer ligger eller ens känner till de mest elementära fakta om nutidshistorien? På vilken kunskaps- och värderingsmässig grund ska de basera sina ställningstaganden?

För att kunna vara vaksamma inför totalitära ideologier och förstå att värdesätta och försvara vårt öppna samhälle och de värden detta vilar på, måste vi ha kunskap om vad som skett. Denna kunskap är inte minst viktig för att kunna återknyta de tidigare så självklara och naturliga kontakterna med våra grannar på andra sidan Östersjön och visa människorna där respekt och förståelse.

Det behövs en omedelbar kraftansträngning för att förbättra det oacceptabla kunskapsläget i skolan. I syfte att göra detta krävs att oberoende forskningsmedel frigörs och att breda kunskapssatsningar kan komma till stånd, i form av nya läromedel, lärarhandledningar och långsiktiga upplysningskampanjer. De tidigare utlovade satsningarna på upplysning om kommunismens brott har hittills inte resulterat i någon märkbar omsättning i praktisk handling. Dessa frågor är alltför viktiga, allmäna och grundläggande för att informationen kring dem skall tillåtas att styras av kortsiktiga, partipolitiskt taktiska hänsyn. Här krävs en engagerande, långsiktig och kontinuerlig kunskapsatsning. Den svenska tystnaden om kommunismens brott måste brytas."

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Socialdemokrater bjuder in kända antisemiter

Från Expressen:

"Socialdemokrater bjuder in kända antisemiter"

Citat:

Antisemitismen blir snabbt allt mer salongsfähig inom delar av vänstern. Under senare år har vi sett flera exempel på hur antijudiska fördomar – ofta invävda i en diskussion om Mellanöstern eller förintelsen – propagerats och applåderats av opinionsbildare som betecknar sig själva som progressiva. I flertalet fall har detta gällt grupperingar på den yttersta vänsterkanten, men mycket tyder på att även opinioner inom den politiska mittfåran lockas av denna typ av budskap.
Att så är fallet tydliggjordes återigen föregående helg. Söndagen 18 mars inbjöd ABF i Stockholm, Broderskapsrörelsen och Fib-Kulturfront till ett seminarium betitlat ”Irak, Palestina och Afghanistan: Samma ockupation?” En av talarna var den brittiskisraeliske Gilad Atzmon. I programmet presenteras han som ”jazzmusiker, filosof/skribent”. Det var emellertid näppeligen som musiker han hade inbjudits, utan för sitt politiska budskap.
Atzmon är inte okänd. Tvärtom, han är en internationellt ökänd antisemit vars propaganda är grov, naken och därför omöjlig att missförstå.

...

"Med en argumentation som påminner om Hitlers hävdar han att det är irrelevant huruvida ”‘Sions vises protokoll’ är ett äkta dokument eller snarare en förfalskning”. Det relevanta faktumet är att ”amerikanska judar (i verkligheten sionister) faktiskt kontrollerar världen.”

Alla seriösa debattörer känner till och tillkännager att ”Sions vises protokoll” är ett falsarium – framställt 1903 av den ryska hemliga polisen – som propagerar myten om en global judisk konspiration vars syfte är inget mindre än världsherravälde.

...

Atzmon uttrycker stöd för nazistiska historierevisionister och beskriver den etablerade förståelsen av förintelsen som en liberaldemokratisk religion. Den enda form av ”förintelse-förnekande” som bekymrar honom är ”förnekandet av den pågående förintelsen av palestinierna.” Israel beskrivs som en nazistisk stat som måste försvinna.
Att Fib-Kulturfront sluter upp bakom Atzmon är knappast förvånande. I den kretsen har det sedan länge funnits sympatier för denna typ av budskap. Här räcker det att påminna om det långtgående stödet för Robert Faurisson och Radio Islam, liksom nyligen publicerade artiklar med rubriker som exempelvis ”Sionism = nazism”.

Att inte Broderskapsrörelsen ser några problem med att inbjuda Atzmon är tyvärr inte heller helt överraskande. I Sveriges televisions ”Uppdrag granskning” 2/5 2006 framgick det att organisationen har ett nära samarbete med extrema, islamistiska grupperingar. Hösten 2005 inbjöd Broderskap tillsammans med andra organisationer Azzam Al-Tamimi att tala i Stockholm. Al-Tamimi är en radikal islamist som öppet förordar självmordsterror mot civila israeler och agiterar för en utplåning av Israel (se till exempel intervjun med Al-Tamimi i BBC:s ”Hard Talk” 2/11 2004). Broderskaps tidigare ordförande Evert Svensson rekommenderade i webbpublikationen Socialistiskt forum 5/11 2004 dels Israels Shamirs grovt antisemitiska bok ”Blommor i Galiléen”, dels Andreas von Bülows pamflett ”CIA och 11 september” i vilken det påstås att terrorattacken mot USA iscensattes av CIA, möjligen i samarbete med Israel.

Utvecklingen möter dock protester. Sommaren 2006 meddelade prästen Tommy Sandberg att han lämnade Broderskap. Enligt tidningen Dagen 5/6 2006 var ett viktigt skäl till Sandbergs utträde att organisationen ”ser mellan fingrarna på antisemitiska företeelser”.
Att ABF och Broderskapsrörelsen, två organisationer knutna till Sveriges största parti, socialdemokraterna, inbjuder kända antisemiter och därmed sanktionerar deras budskap är utan tvekan djupt oroväckande. I samband med ”Uppdrag gransknings” avslöjanden om Broderskaps kontakter förklarade s-kvinnornas ordförande Nalin Pekgul att den socialdemokratiska partiledningen ”absolut inte ställer sig bakom att någon sidoorganisation har kontakter med grupper som inte respekterar demokratin” (SvT:s webbsida 16/5 2006). Uppenbarligen hade denna protest liten inverkan.

...

JESPER SVARTVIK
Jesper Svartvik är ordförande för Svenska kommittén mot antisemitism och docent vid teologiska institutionen, Lunds universitet. Han är prästvigd
i Svenska kyrkan.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran

Press release from the UK think-tank Open Europe

Link to the press release:

European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran

European poll findings on globalisation and foreign policy: Majority of UK and EU citizens would back military action against Iran
04 April 2007

Open Europe today releases further findings from a poll of all 27 EU member states, looking at Europeans’ attitudes to globalisation and a range of foreign policy issues. TNS surveyed 17,443 people during March.

Key findings:

Foreign policy

A majority (51%) of people in the UK would back military action against Iran. A majority agreed with the statement “We must stop countries like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, even if that means taking military action”. Across the EU as a whole, 52% said they agreed with the statement. A majority agreed with the statement in 18 member states, while a majority were against in 9 member states.

More people in the UK are concerned about Islamic fundamentalism than in any other EU country. 71% agreed with the statement that “Islamic fundamentalism is a serious threat for our country”, compared to an EU average of 58%.

However, few voters in the EU would be prepared to see cuts in other spending programmes to finance higher defence spending. Only 37% of UK voters and 23% of all EU voters agreed with the statement that, “Our country should spend more on defence and less on other things.”

Globalisation and competition

UK voters are the fourth most concerned about immigration of all 27 members. In the UK 77% agreed with the statement that “There is too much immigration into our country”, compared to an EU average of 59%. The three countries where concern was highest are all in the Mediterranean: Cyprus, Malta and Greece.

72% in the UK agreed with the statement that “We need to lower taxes in our country if we are going to be able to compete in the modern world”. Across the EU the average was 75%.

On the other hand, 51% in the UK backed more “green” taxes, compared to 46% across the EU as a whole. Support for the statement “We should be prepared to pay higher taxes to fight global warming” was highest in Sweden, at 70%. Generally, the new eastern European member states were more sceptical about green taxes.

Support for protectionist trade policies is highest in France. 73% of French voters agreed that “The EU needs to be protected against cheap goods and competition from countries with low social standards”, compared to an EU average of 63%, and 58% support in the UK.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

I`m back

Dear All,

I will try and see if I can return to blogging. From now on however this will be "an occasional blog" and posts may be infrequent.

Best Wishes,

IceViking