A newsletter on American Jewish - German relations

1. AN AMERICAN JEWISH – GERMAN INFORMATION & OPINION
NEWSLETTER
dubowdigest@optonline.net
To receive DuBow Digest directly send your e-mail address to
dubowdigest@optonline.net
AMERICAN EDITION
March 31, 2011
Dear Friends:
The last few weeks have been unbelievable. The earthquake and tsunami in Japan,
the military action in Libya and more terrorism coming from both Gaza and the West
Bank would have been – dayenu – enough! However, the political situation in
Germany experienced its own tsunami with Chancellor Merkel’s coalition getting hit
hard in three state elections. We’ll talk about them in articles below.
The Baden-Wuerttemberg election hurts the Chancellor most because in the Upper
House of the parliament, the Bundesrat, domestic legislation is almost impossible to
pass without the agreement of the opposition. The ruling coalition is now very
hampered.
The Chancellor’s coalition partner, the Free Democrats (FDP) have been shown to
be particularly weak and without them in 2013 when the national elections are held,
the Christian Democrats (CDU) have no chance of remaining in power because they
need the FDP for a coalition.
(A fact to remember: In a parliamentary system such as Germany’s the party with
the largest percentage of the vote does not always become part of the ruling
coalition. In almost all state and national elections no party gets the 50% plus one
that is needed to rule alone. So, a coalition is needed. If two parties getting a lesser
percentage of the vote can put together a majority the party getting the largest vote
can be left out. Keep that in mind when reading about the Baden-Wuerttemberg
election.)
1

2. The coalition abstention in the UN on the Libya no-fly resolution didn’t go down well
with France, Great Britain and the U.S. A seeming flip-flop on nuclear plants (closing
seven of them) was seen as a political ploy and not a genuine matter of principle.
Double dayenu! Let’s get on with the details…
IN THIS EDITION
SAXONY-ANHALT: THE GOOD & THE BAD NEWS – The first of the state
elections. A precursor of things to come.
THE WORSER NEWS – The elections in Baden-Wuerttemberg (Stuttgart) and
Rheinland-Palatinate (Mainz). The CDU takes it on the chin.
LIBYA – Germany goes it alone. An explanation.
MERKEL, NETANYAHU, OBAMA & NATIONAL INTEREST – A follow up on the
relationships and the national interest.
EXTREMISM NEXT DOOR – The Le Pen’s rise again.
MUSLIMS DON’T BELONG – A new German Minister says what others might think
– and causes a (What do you call a small political tsunami?).
MORE ON IMMIGRATION & INTEGRATION – Strong language about immigration
from Bavaria.
ANTI-SEMITISM & XENOPHOBIA – A troubling report.
SAXONY-ANHALT: THE GOOD & THE BAD NEWS
On March 20th a state election was held in Saxony-Anhalt, one of the states in
eastern Germany. Long a stronghold of the Christian Democrats (CDU - Chancellor
Merkel’s party) they managed to hold on but lost percentage in the vote. Their
preferred partner, the Free Democrats, did not get the needed 5% which a party
needs to be in the state parliament. So, the CDU will, once again, have to be in a
“grand coalition” with the Social Democrats, normally their opponents. So, for the
Chancellor Saxony-Anhalt is the “good news” (such as it is) even though no one
could detect big victory celebrations.
The bad news is that the National Democrat Party (NPD), the neo-Nazis, got 4.8%
(Ed. Note: Various stories report 4.6% and 4.8%. There’s not much difference) which
means they missed being in the parliament by a whisker. According to Spiegel On-
line, “The far-right NPD received 4.8 percent of the vote, just missing the 5 percent
2

3. necessary for representation in parliament. Concerns that the NPD could leap the 5
percent hurdle resulted in a higher-than-expected voter turnout of 51 percent, say
analysts. Five years ago, a mere 44 percent of state voters cast their ballots, the
lowest for any state in Germany's history.
Despite the apparent dwindling support for Merkel's Berlin coalition, little is likely to
change in Magdeburg, the capital of Saxony-Anhalt. The center-right CDU has
governed the state in coalition with the SPD for the last five years, and Sunday's
results make it probable that the "grand coalition" will continue. Reiner Haseloff, the
CDU's lead candidate in the vote, looks set to become state governor in place of his
fellow CDU member Wolfgang Böhmer, who is retiring.
Hold it! The bad news isn’t over yet. DW-WORLD notes, “The far-right National-
Democratic Party of Germany, or NPD, didn't win any seats in Sunday's state
elections in Saxony-Anhalt, but it was particularly popular with young people.
Although the party, which has aroused criticism for its links with racially motivated
violence, only earned 4.6 percent of the overall vote, polls show that 15 percent of
men under 30 cast their ballots for the party.
The fact that the NPD didn't manage the 5 percent hurdle to enter parliament, says
Professor Hajo Funke, an expert on social and political issues who has written
extensively about Germany's far right, does not mean that it has no influence in the
state. It represents a culture of youth violence and aggression towards foreigners
that is very present in society.
"The number of violent attacks in Saxony-Anhalt increased again in 2010," he said.
"This culture of violence is a racist culture; it hasn't been properly dealt with and is
still relatively strong."
In 2010, 42 percent of all attacks in Saxony-Anhalt were racially motivated,
compared to 24 percent the previous year, according to an advice centre for victims
of right-wing violence.
There is more to the story although not all of Saxony-Anhalt is a hive of neo-Nazi
activity. The NPD, as the story points out, is a fringe party but I recall that the
predecessor Nazis in the 1920’s were even smaller. So, eternal vigilance is called
for.
To read it all, click here. http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14937033,00.html
THE WORSER NEWS
Following the Saxony-Anhalt election two more state elections were held.
In an analysis my Berlin colleague Deidre Berger wrote, “There were two major
upsets in elections today in two southern German states, Baden-Wuerttemberg
3

4. (Stuttgart) and Rheinland-Palatinate (Mainz).
For the first time in 58 years, the important southern German state
of Baden-Wuerttemberg will no longer be ruled by the conservative
Christian Democratic Party. Instead, it will be governed by a
Green-Social Democratic coalition. The Free Democratic Party (FDP) came
in just over the 5% mark needed to re-enter parliament, losing about
half of its votes from the previous election.
For the first time in its 30-year party history, the Green Party will
govern a German state (Baden-Wuerttemberg) as the major coalition
partner.
The Greens doubled their vote from the previous election, from
approximately 12% to 24%, just ahead of the Social Democrats with 23%.
In Rheinland Palatinate, they probably tripled their results, from less than
5% (they were not in the parliament the past four years) to about 15% of
the total vote. Here, the Free Democrats did not make it back into the
parliament.
The dominant topic for the elections was unquestionably energy policies
and the Japanese nuclear disaster. Nuclear energy was never popular in
Germany, particularly since Chernobyl, and the decision last year by Chancellor
Merkel's conservative coalition to extend the operating times of older
atomic energy plants in Germany by 12 years was not well-received.
About 200,000 Germans protested nuclear energy yesterday in four major
German cities at rallies and demonstrations, calling for a shift to
alternative energy resources. All of the candidates after today's
elections spoke about reviewing their party's energy policies. Nuclear
energy accounts currently for about 23% of German energy needs, a
percentage likely to decrease considerably in coming years. The
difference is unlikely to come from gas and oil but from wind and solar
power, among other alternative energy sources, as well as from increased
energy efficiency. The German government has spent considerable funds
on subsidies for building insulation programs.
While the elections were a blow for the conservative Christian
Democrats, the results could have been worse. The party lost 5% of the
vote compared to the last election, coming in today at 39%, they still
are 15 percentage points ahead of their traditional main competitor, the
Social Democrats. And in Rheinland-Palatinate, where the incumbent governor
also lost 9% of the vote over the last election, the CDU was
able to slightly improve its results over the previous election.
If the Free Democratic Party had failed to be re-elected in its home
state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, it might have caused a coalition shake-up
4

5. in Berlin. However, this result was narrowly averted.
The greatest impact of the elections from today is likely to be the
impact on an energy policy moving away from nuclear power, as well as on
a renewed emphasis in politics on grass-roots activism. In Stuttgart,
the government decision to put the main train station underground to
develop a new city quarter was unpopular, leading to a wave of
popular demonstrations for months last year. This was an additional
factor that swept the Green Party into government, as many Greens helped
lead the demonstrations. The protest movement, which was dubbed
"Stuttgart 21," has become synonymous in Germany for local protest
movements that oppose policies perceived as serving the needs of big
business rather than of average voters.
So far, it does not seem as if foreign policy played a role in these
state elections. Fortunately, far right-wing parties played a
negligible role, receiving about 1% of the vote in each of the two
states.
In sum, the most significant impact from our viewpoint is probably the
astounding success of the Green Party in two relatively conservative
areas of Germany. These elections establish the Greens again as the
third major national political force, instead of the fifth place it
carried during the last national elections (behind the Free Democratic
Party and the Left Party, which did not get into either parliament in
today's elections). While the Christian Democrats lost both elections,
this was not entirely unexpected and they did not do so poorly in either
of the two states. The Social Democrats held their own in one election,
slipping in the other, not showing a clear trend for ascent for the next
national elections.
That’s about as good an analysis as you will get anywhere.
LIBYA
Chancellor Merkel and her government created a major furor by abstaining from the
UN vote on the Libyan No-Fly Zone. The criticism came from all sides. The French,
who largely initiated the resolution, felt deserted by their closest ally. There was a
feeling that EU solidarity was violated. Leaders in her own coalition felt that
Germany’s abstention indicated weakness and a failure for Germany to undertake
an international leadership role.
For what was behind the German government’s thinking I turned to my old pal Dr.
Jackson (Jack) Janes, the Director of the American Institute for Contemporary
German Studies at Johns Hopkins.
5

6. Jack, in an analysis, wrote, “The government's case that support for the UN
resolution would have required sending German troops to Libya remains the core of
its defense. How could we support the resolution and then not send troops, goes the
logic. In addition, the emphasis on using more effective sanctions to contain
Gaddafi's aggression was deemed the more effective course over engaging in
military action. Then there is the argument that the rebels in Libya do not represent
the same type of opposition seen in Tunisia or Egypt in the past weeks and that
Libya is embroiled in civil war in which Germany cannot intervene. The Merkel-
Westerwelle team argues that Germany is not alone in Europe or the world, pointing
to others in the Security Council - not only Russia and China but particularly India
and Brazil - who also abstained in last week's vote.
While all these arguments appeal to a German public which is already against
Germany's presence in Afghanistan and generally favors the rejection of military
force as a viable tool for such conflicts, the counter-arguments underscore a
continuing struggle in Germany over its role on the international stage. The attempt
to differentiate between the need to stop a dictator from mass-murdering his own
people and the unwillingness to use force to achieve that goal is strained to say the
least. Arguing that Gaddafi can be stopped by strengthening sanctions when he is
threatening to systematically and immediately kill the rebels fighting against him
lacks credibility when one looks at the unfolding humanitarian crisis on the ground.
Furthermore, arguing that the UN resolution would have immediately required the
engagement of German troops in the Libyan conflict is also jumping to an
unnecessary conclusion as every member of NATO can determine its resources
available. The need for ground troops in Libya - particularly from Western nations -
is questionable to begin with and is not part of the UN resolution. The struggle in
Libya is finally a Libyan challenge to get rid of Gaddafi. The question is how to help
that homegrown effort without undermining it, and the overwhelming presence of
Western troops could certainly do just that.
Whether you buy the German rationale or not it is very important to understand it
and particularly German public opinion when the use of military forces is concerned.
Jack’s analysis is far deeper than the portion I have quoted above. It is only a page
long and will give you further insight . No question! You should read it. Click here to
do so. http://www.aicgs.org/analysis/at-issue/ai032511.aspx
MERKEL, NETANYAHU, OBAMA & NATIONAL INTEREST
Many thanks to those of you who wrote me regarding the piece I had in the last
edition about the growing distance between Germany & Israel and, as well that
between Chancellor Merkel and P.M. Netanyahu.
6

7. I wasn’t the only one who detected the rift. Judy Dempsey in the New York Times,
the day after my newsletter was e-mailed, had a column which basically said the
same thing. Dempsey wrote, “The German vote exposed the divisions in Israel over
its complicated relationship with Germany. On one side are Jews who will never
forgive Germany for the Holocaust; in their view, Germany has a permanent
obligation never to criticize Israel.
On the other side are voices who say that because Germany is a good and
consistent friend of Israel, it should use that special relationship to speak out when
needed.
There’s much more to her article and you should read it. Click here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/europe/08iht-letter08.html?_r=1
I also talked about the troublesome phone call between Merkel and Netanyahu and
how critical the Chancellor was of the Prime Minister. It looks as if the Chancellor
has company. Aaron David Miller, a former State Dept. Middle East expert who has
taken part in the Israeli – Palestinian negotiations in the past and now is at the
Woodrow Wilson Center Public Policy writes about Obama’s feelings toward
Netanyahu.
Writing in Foreign Policy he notes, “Obama may not be Israel's best friend, but he's
not self-destructive. Unlike Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who were in
love with the idea of Israel, Obama is not. He's too cool, detached, and analytical.
He sees Israel primarily in the context of U.S. interests -- and less so in the context
of its values. As the stronger party, he believes Israel should be much more
magnanimous when it comes to the Palestinians. Moreover, he looks at Israel's
current prime minister as a kind of smooth-talking con man. Clinton and Bush were
truly impressed by Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon; Obama doesn't think much of
Netanyahu, and it shows. If the president could find a painless way to squeeze the
prime minister, he'd do it.
The article has nothing to do with Germany but Miller makes the case that “national
interest” trumps everything else these days. (Wasn’t it always so?). Good personal
relations help but national interest reigns supreme. No matter how nice (or nasty)
leaders are to each other the political end game is what really counts.
To read Miller’s article click here.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/07/for_better_or_for_worse
EXTREMISM NEXT DOOR
In the American Jewish community there is a constant worry about the rise of
extremism, fascism and Nazism in Germany. Considering history and the
implications for anti-Semitism, it’s a legitimate concern. Indeed, there are a few neo-
7

8. Nazis in state legislatures but none have ever made it into the federal parliament,
the Bundestag.
While I normally concern myself mostly with Germany, at times I get a little up tight
about what is going on next door in France. DW-World.de reports, “An opinion poll in
France has found that right-wing politician Marine Le Pen could defeat President
Nicholas Sarkozy in upcoming elections, Le Parisien reported Saturday.
The poll results, published in the Sunday edition of the French daily, showed the 42-
year-old leader of the National Front party would receive 23 percent of the vote in
the first of the two rounds of presidential elections due to occur in France next year.
Center-right Sarkozy would only receive 21 percent of the vote, according to the
poll.
"This poll makes me believe that Nicolas Sarkozy will lose this presidential election,"
Le Pen said at a news conference in northern France.
Part of Le Pen's platform so far has included comparing Muslims in France to an
occupying force. Meanwhile, Sarkozy has initiated a national debate on the role of
Islam in France, a move that some feel is designed to neutralize Le Pen.
No margin of error was published for the poll, conducted between February 28 and
March 3 with 1,618 people aged 18 and up.
France's next presidential elections are set for May 2012.
The French elections are a long way off but news of the new life that seems to have
invigorated the Le Pen forces is very troubling. Granted, the young Le Pen seems to
be somewhat less radical than her father. She may have learned that anti-Semitism
is bad politics. However, even the possibility that someone so far to the radical right
might become President of France outpolling Pres. Sarkozy is scary.
I’m not the only one who has such fears. The French Jewish community is very
much ill at ease with Le Pen and the National Front. An internal dispute has erupted
as to how she should be related to – if at all.
Ben Harris covers it quite well in JTA. Click here to read his story.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/22/3086506/marine-le-pen
MUSLIMS DON’T BELONG
On would have thought that a newly appointed Minister of the Interior would take a
few days or weeks to get a feel for his Ministry and the difficult problems that
confront Germany in the area of immigration. Not Hans-Peter Friedrich! With the first
8

9. shot out of the starting gate Minister Friedrich announced “Islam “does not belong” in
Germany.
Tony Patterson in the British journal The Independent writes, “Chancellor Angela
Merkel's newly appointed Interior Minister has reignited an already-heated
immigration debate by insisting that Islam "does not belong" in Germany – a country
with a resident population of four million Muslims.
Hans-Peter Friedrich took office only last week in a cabinet reshuffle, but his
outspoken views have provoked instant condemnation from opposition MPs and a
vitriolic response from Islamic groups which have branded them a "slap in the face
for all Muslims".
"To say that Islam belongs in Germany is not a fact supported by history", Mr.
Friedrich said. At the weekend, he underlined his position, insisting that immigrants
ought to be aware of their host country's "Western Christian origins" and learn
German "first and foremost".
His views flatly contradicted those of Germany's conservative President, Christian
Wulff, who, in an attempt to defuse an increasingly bitter integration row, proclaimed
in a keynote speech last year that Islam "belongs to Germany" precisely because of
its large Muslim population.
Mr. Friedrich, who belongs to the Bavarian wing of Ms. Merkel's ruling Christian
Democrats, a group known for its opposition to Muslim immigration, insisted in a
speech on Saturday that his stance was meant to bring "society together and not
polarize it". Addition by subtraction? That’s what it sounds like.
For a politician there’s nothing like playing to the home crowd. Perhaps with his
fellow CSU member, former Defense Minister zu Guttenberg, out of the cabinet
Friedrich fancies himself as the top CSU dog or maybe even a Chancellor candidate
somewhere down the line. As the old radio hero, The Shadow, used to say, “Who
knows what lurks in the minds of men?”
Click here for the rest of the article.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/minister-insists-islam-does-not-belong-in-
germany-2234260.html
MORE ON IMMIGRATION & INTEGRATION
Quite different from the problem we have in the U.S., Germany has its own severe
problem with immigration as noted in the article above. Germany, unlike the U.S. is
not an “Immigration country” and does not share the “open arms” policies that have
made America great since its inception. After World War II as Germany began its
miraculous economic recovery it welcomed laborers especially from Turkey to
handle the jobs that Germans did not want to deal with themselves. The expectation
9

10. was that after earning enough in the way of wages they would return home. They
didn’t!
So, Germany now has roughly 4 million of those “guest workers” (including their
children and grandchildren) living throughout the Federal Republic. Since citizenship
in Germany means giving up their Turkish nationality and German citizenship is very
hard to obtain anyway, there remains a substantial number (almost all) who are not
“integrated” into German culture and life and who do not speak German. To make
the problem even greater, almost all are Muslims (see above) making integration all
that much more difficult.
The opposition to the movement for more inclusion comes from southern German,
namely Bavaria. It reminds me a little of our own civil rights struggles of the 1960’s.
What is it about “The South”?
The leader of the Christian Social Union Party which only exists in Bavaria, Horst
Seehofer, according to D-W World.de “.. said at a political rally on Wednesday that
his Christian Social Union (CSU) would "resist until the last bullet", in order to stop
immigration into the welfare system.
A poor choice of words.
A German politician has reported Bavarian State Premier Horst Seehofer to the
police for inciting hatred. He's accused of using a turn of phrase with National
Socialist overtones.
"I want to see, if the speech constitutes the criminal offence of sedition," Ulrich
Kaspari, who until 2009 was a state secretary in the Transport Ministry for the Social
Democrat party, wrote in his internet blog.
"In my opinion he crossed the line, which a democrat should not cross," he added.
Kaspari claims that this phrase "significantly" disturbs the public peace.
The phrase "defend until the last bullet" was used in the battle of Stalingrad in World
War II and by Adolf Hitler in spring 1945 during the battle for Berlin.
The leader of the opposition Greens in Bavaria, Dieter Janecek, also voiced his
outrage.
"Germany is not Stalingrad, the CSU is not the German army and immigrants are
not the Red Army," he said.
Where are the German Martin Luther King’s and Lyndon Johnson’s when we need
them?
10

11. ANTI-SEMITISM & XENOPHOBIA
A new report by a German political foundation; the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung,
produced some very troubling statistics. The report, “"The State of Intolerance,
Prejudices and Discrimination in Europe," was released March 11 in the framework
of a conference sponsored by the foundation.
According to a JTA story, “The foundation commissioned the new evaluation of a
2008 survey by researchers at the University of Bielefeld of about 1,000 people in
eight European countries: Germany, Poland, Holland, Great Britain, Italy, Hungary
and Portugal.
Asked whether they agree with the statement that "Jews have too much influence in
my country," 69.2 percent of Hungarians and 49.9 percent of Poles agreed. The
lowest levels were in Holland, with 4.6 percent agreeing. Germany, with 19.6
percent, was in the middle, sociologist Beate Kuepper told JTA in a telephone
interview.
Kuepper, Andreas Zick and Andreas Hoevermann evaluated the data for the
foundation.
Scientists found that those with anti-Semitic tendencies also were likely to be
xenophobic against other minority groups, including Muslims, as well as resentful of
homosexuals and women, Kuepper said.
Kuepper said she was most surprised by the fact that Germany's level of anti-
Semitism was about average, given the strong public message against anti-
Semitism, including the emphasis on Holocaust education. She also said that the
results for Poland bore out those of previous studies, which show that religious-
based anti-Semitism is extremely high there, at 70 percent.
When you think about the numbers, they really are shocking and very depressing.
The Jewish community in Hungary consists of, at most, 50,000 Jews out of a total
population of about 10 million. The fact that almost 70% think the Jews have too
much influence is astounding. My guess is that most have never met a Jew.
Poland is even more unbelievable. With a population of about 38 million and only
(roughly) 50, 000 Jews (0.06% of the population) anti-Semitism is still a major factor.
Perhaps, most disappointing is Germany. Kuepper said she was most surprised by
the fact that Germany's level of anti-Semitism was about average, given the strong
public message against anti-Semitism, including the emphasis on Holocaust
education.
11

12. Working in the Jewish community for all the years that I have, long ago I came to
terms with the fact that anti-Semitism is a deadly virus that, like TB, can be arrested
but never fully eradicated. It lies there waiting for the proper set of political
circumstances to raise its nasty head and do the harm that it has done for almost the
last 2,000 years. The best way to deal with it is through education and eternal
vigilance. Better understanding reduces the possibilities of it surfacing and an early
warning system helps us raise the alarm so that we can try to deal with its most
pernicious affects.
I’m sorry I can’t be more upbeat. The situation doesn’t merit it.
**********************************************************************************************
See you in April.
DuBow Digest is written and published by Eugene DuBow who can be contacted by
clicking here.
Both the American and Germany editions are posted at
www.dubowdigest.typepad.com
Click here to connect
12