Does Germany's interior minister really hate Muslims, or is he just providing a diversionary tactic? Abdel-Azim Hammad investigates Most Arabs and Muslims in Germany are all too aware of the record of German Interior Minister Otto Schily. In particular, they know him for the barrage of vitriol he often unleashes against Islam, against Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular. So for them, Schily's recent statements in Israel will have come as no surprise. The German minister bluntly defended the apartheid wall being built by Ariel Sharon's extreme rightwing government, and proceeded to declare that Islamic terror is now the greatest danger to the "civilised" world. Schily was in Israel last week to attend a conference on terror marking the third anniversary of 9/11. One could view his remarks as simply a nod to the occasion, but the man's record suggests otherwise. For Schily often goes beyond the official view of his government in defending Israel's violations of international law and its continued aggression against the Palestinian people. Not content with denouncing Islamist terror, he goes on to slander Islam as a religion. But although he seems to live in a black-and-white moral world, there is a little-known puzzle hidden in Schily's past. In his youth, Schily acted as the defence lawyer for a number of major German terrorists, and in particular, for the members of the dreaded Baader-Meinhof group. One cannot blame Schily for having been an extreme leftist in his youth. The minister began his political life as a Trotskyite, before moving on to the Green Party. He then left the Greens for the Socialist Party. All of these transitions are quite normal in themselves. One does not necessarily have to see Schily's past career as an extended exercise in opportunism -- people change their minds all the time. The question that puzzles many, however, is how a man who should know that terror can surface in any culture and in any society, who has been in close contact with Germany's own terrorist youth, could have become such an avowed demagogue? Why has Schily chosen now to ride the populist wave, linking terror with Islam, and launching his own permanent campaign against Muslims and Palestinians? The fact that Schily's wife is Jewish may, or indeed may not, be relevant here. Under the Green-Socialist coalition government, Germany has decided to cast off its former status as a political dwarf, and play a growing role in international politics. Accordingly, it has chosen to make serious efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, the EU's nearest neighbour. Why, then, does Schily keep making up policies of his own? Let's take a look at his record again -- a record that, as I said, is full of hostile, unhelpful, and non- objective remarks. First, amid the fever that swept over the world following 9/11, and as European and US rightwing extremists were speaking of the "backwardness" of Muslims and claiming that violence is an integral aspect of Islam, Schily suddenly took the debate in a strange and misguided destination. To prove that they are tolerant, he said, Muslims should not mind being called heretics. Second, when Schily felt that the German public was in danger of sympathising with the suffering of the Palestinians, when he saw more than 100,000 Germans responding to the peace movements' call and taking to the streets for solidarity marches in major German cities two years ago, the minister himself led a Zionist march in Frankfurt. Third, two years ago, the Berlin Interior Ministry and authorities approved a project, submitted by the Arab-German Women's Union, to hold a charity event for the benefit of Palestinian orphans. After all the arrangements had been made, and all the financial measures taken, the German consulates in a number of Arab capitals refused to deliver visas for the Arab artists who had volunteered to perform at the event. Moreover, the consulates failed to return the passports to their owners until it was too late for them to make arrangements to travel to Berlin via another European country. Obviously, the consulates were acting upon orders handed down by the Interior Ministry. Fourth, throughout the preparation of the new immigration law and the amendment of the criminal procedures laws, Schily advocated the strictest measures towards Arabs and Muslims. He insisted on giving the security services the right to deport people suspected of ties with terrorist organisations without a court order. Fifth, the German Interior Ministry supported the proposal to collect personal data on every Arab or Muslim student living in Germany, whether naturalised or not. Fortunately, the universities protested, saying that they would rather violate the law than sink to such depths, and managed to obtain court rulings rescinding the Interior Ministry's request. Sixth, police raids on mosques continue to this day, often for the most laughable reasons. In the latest incident, police raided a mosque in Frankfurt on the basis of allegations made by a nine- year-old. Hundreds of such raids have been conducted, and not once to date did the police find any evidence of security breaches. Seventh, Schily has sought to make political capital out of the case in which the captain of a German ship was arrested by Italian authorities in the Mediterranean on charges of ferrying illegal aliens. The captain claims that he hauled the illegal aliens out of the sea to save them from drowning after their ship sank. Schily seized the opportunity to propose that the EU establish a camp in North Africa to which all illegal aliens found in the EU would be deported. The proposal was so shocking that one Green member of the German parliament said that it reminded him of the Nazi concentration camps. Eighth, Schily's recent remarks in defence of Israel's apartheid wall were totally one-sided. He referred to Palestinian terror, but not to occupation. He spoke as if occupation were the normal state of things, as if it were a prerogative for Israel, as if it were something that should be defended by all means -- whether through state terrorism or by turning the Palestinian territories into one huge open-air prison. As Schily was making these remarks in Herzlia, as he was describing Israel as the world's number one victim of terror, as he was noting that Israel "is not the only state in the world that insists on occupying other people's land", Israel's Shlomo Ben-Ami was speaking in Berlin to a gathering of German ambassadors. Ben- Ami's point was that the separation wall is a clear admission of the failure of Israeli rightwing policy. The true solution to the security problem is to end the occupation, said Ben-Ami, who went as far as to ridicule calls for "confidence building" measures between Palestinians and Israelis as long as the status quo continues. Schily thus finds himself defending a far more "pro-Israeli" line than certain leading Israelis. All of the above would seem to indicate that Schily is ideologically prejudiced against Arabs and Muslims. But are there other factors which might help explain his behaviour? One possibility is that a "good cop-bad cop" routine is underway. And who better than the interior minister to play the bad cop? With terror so high on the agenda, it makes sense for Schily, the man in charge of security, to act tough. And since terror has an Islamic tint at this stage, it makes sense for Schily to get abrasive with Arabs and Muslims. If intentional, such a tactic would certainly serve to appease the Zionists, who are highly influential in German politics and media, while leaving Schroeder and Fischer free to formulate an even- handed diplomacy for peace in the Middle East. Germany often tries to be even-handed in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but it sometimes has a peculiar way of going about it. It offers the Arabs technical and financial assistance, and at the same time it offers Israel weapons. On the diplomatic front, Germany tends to undermine any European decision not approved in advance by Israel. Germany also tends to unleash a pre-emptive broadside of criticism at the Palestinians, before it allows itself the luxury of slapping Israel on the hand. Recently, Fischer has criticised the course of the separation wall and Sharon's refusal to link the Gaza disengagement plan with the roadmap. Is this the ultimate, and very simple, explanation for all of Schily's vitriol?
