riverScrap

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, is a Jew

2009-10-03T15:24:54+01:00

Oy! You spend your whole life trying to distance yourself from the Jewish faith. You give speech after speech calling for the abolition of that cursed Zionist state. You truly aspire to be the best anti-Semite you can be.

And then what? Some putz – some schmuck journalist with a long-lens camera – reveals to the whole world your shameful Jewish past. Oy gavalt! Oy vez mear! What shanda befalls your name, Mahmoud, you shlimazel?

A dramatisation, perhaps. But rest assured that sentiments not entirely dissimilar to those will be frantically running through the Iranian president's mind today, as he wakes up to media reports that he, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the notorious Jew-hater, the guy who called for Israel to be wiped of the map – wait for it, you ready? – yes, he is a bona fide Jew.

The astonishing revelation has been unearthed by hacks from The Telegraph, who after analysing a close-up of the Iranian president's identity card learnt that his former surname was Sabourjian – a name recognised by the Ministry of the Interior as exclusively used by Iranian Jews.

Mr Ahmadinejad has never made a secret of the fact that he changed his surname when he moved to Tehran in the 1950s.

No justification for the switch was made public, however, nor has he ever revealed the name he formerly held. But with the cat now well and truly out of the bag, analysts are suggesting his constant anti-Semitic outbursts could be a form of overcompensation for this secret ancestry.

"This aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's background explains a lot about him," began Ali Nourizadeh, of the Centre for Arab and Iranian Studies.

"Every family that converts into a different religion takes a new identity by condemning their old faith," Mr Nourizadeh told The Telegraph. "By making anti-Israeli statements he is trying to shed any suspicions about his Jewish connections. He feels vulnerable in a radical Shia society."

The paper also quoted an expert on Iranian Jewry as saying that the '-jian' suffix is specifically reserved for practicing Jews. Literally translated, Sabourjian means "cloth weaver," and it appears on a list of names compiled by Iran's Ministry of the Interior to denote citizens of Jewish descent.

A little-known fact about Iranian society is that - despite Mr Ahmadinejad's vitriolic asseverations suggesting otherwise - the country is home to the largest number of Jews anywhere in the Middle East outside Israel.

About 25,000 people in the Islamic Republic openly profess their Jewish heritage and faith, and synagogues are dotted throughout major cities such as Tehran. With Persian connections stretching back 3,000 years, the Jewish subset even enjoys representation in the Iranian parliament.

One of the country's most prominent Jewish leaders, Unees Hammami, recently told the BBC: "Imam Khomeini [the founder of the Islamic Republic] made a distinction between Jews and Zionists – and he supported us."

Unfortunately, the same can hardly be said for Mr Ahmadinejad. The outspoken leader's rantings and ravings on Israel are now so comprehensive that they have a sizable page on Wikipedia dedicated to them. Many of the most vitriolic remarks are from his notorious 'World without Zionism' speech, given in 2005, in which he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Later that year, he aroused the disgust of historians, politicians and all sound-minded individuals by saying Jews should stop making an "awful fuss about that Holocaust". He suggested that many people made a "myth" of the event, before hosting his very own Holocaust Denial conference in 2006.

During this year's presidential debate, the Iranian leader shrugged off repeated questions probing the reason for his name-change. One blogger who suggested he might have Jewish roots was promptly arrested.

Mr Ahmadinejad has yet to respond publicly to the report.

Has British Airways become a no-frills brand?

2009-10-02T16:05:30+01:00

It won't surprise you that BA News, the internal newspaper "For the people of British Airways," is anything but shy about banging its namesake's drum.

This obvious fact was underscored in a typically fawning recent issue, which heralded the dawn of the flag carrier's new TV campaign. But tucked away on the inside pages was a titbit of information which BA conspicuously kept out of its public press releases.

Amid the usual marketing fanfare, Abigail Comber, BA Manager for Brand, Proposition and Insight, let slip her admiration for the campaign's foresight, noting that it had deliberately avoided "making brand promises". And just a few short weeks on, boy can't you see why?

You might recall that BA caused uproar last week after bullishly announcing plans to charge up to £60 to reserve a specific seat.

The move continues an unmistakable trend by the airline away from its legacy past and towards the no-frills sector. It raises the spectre – unthinkable throughout BA's history – of full-fare passengers being told to cough up extra cash or be seated away from their children.

And while the BA press machine has been busy singing a different tune – pleading that it is "giving customers something they have asked us for" – even that rebuttal seems a throwback to low-cost rhetoric. Recall the ramblings of no-frills behemoth Ryanair, which never tires of arguing that mandatory check-in charges help its passengers save money.

Taken by itself the new fee doesn't signify a great deal. It is, after all, perfectly reasonable to attach a monetary value to the convenience and extra legroom that comes with sitting in an emergency row. But as Ms Comber ominously indicated, this is far from a one-off.

In July, BA said it will no longer serve meals on short-haul flights. Last month, it reduced its checked luggage allowance while simultaneously increasing excess baggage charges. In May, there were reports that it was scaling back First Class cabins on several of its new aircraft. The scrimping has even prompted the removal of face towels from Business Class.

These measures make sound financial sense given BA's blistering £401 million losses. But there is a real danger they could backfire.

Though officially no longer the UK flag carrier, BA has a virtually unrivalled reputation for excellence and elegance in the skies. It is a fundamentally classy brand, adored as much for its history as its day-to-day service. While in America President Barack Obama flies on Air Force One, in Britain our prime ministers have long been proud to take to the skies on a BA flight.

Would Gordon Brown fly to Brussels, or Washington, on a Ryanair jet?

More worryingly, on a purely pragmatic level, is BA even capable of competing with the low-cost carriers? For all their negative publicity, no-frills airlines are masters of their trade. If the flag carrier chooses to do battle on their home-ground, it could find itself hopelessly out of its depth.

Mr Walsh is right to say BA is fighting for its survival. And the conflicting messages it puts out – trumpeting a no-frills Value Calculator with one hand; adopting those tactics with the other – betrays that internal struggle.

But let there be no bones about it: BA is on the cusp of the most crucial period in its 35-year history. Public funding is a distant memory, and economic hardships are bearing down on the entire industry like never before. The one thing in the carrier's favour is that it, uniquely, is able to evoke memories of once being the "World's Favourite Airline".

The next time BA runs an ad campaign, it should stand by its brand.

Airliner convictions underscore potency of threat

2009-09-08T01:25:34+01:00

It took two trials and £35 million of taxpayers' money, but the successful conviction of three men who plotted to blow up transatlantic jets has brutally driven home the ongoing terror threat facing the West.

Abdulla Ahmed Ali, Tanvir Hussain and Assad Sarwar were today found guilty of conspiring a crime so heinous it would have been almost unrivalled in recent history, killing upwards of 1,500 people and shattering the bubble of security that has subtly cloaked democratic civilisation since 2001.

Their crimes, should they have borne fruit, were easily capable of dwarfing the cataclysmic attacks of 9/11, and with evidence of direct links to Al Qaeda masterminds in Pakistan finally being made public the convictions leave little doubt that, eight years on, the threat is as real as ever.

The three British citizens were found guilty of conspiring to blow up seven separate planes - all scheduled to depart from London Heathrow and bound for various destinations in North America in August 2006.

Only now have full details of their ingenious liquid devices been released. Experts insist that contemporary security measures would not have been able to detect the small and masterfully concealed bombs, which according to a reconstruction staged by the Crown Prosecution Service and reenacted by the BBC were easily capable of downing the jets.

Click here for footage of mock-up devices being detonated

"This stood out as being of a very substantial dimension, advanced, specific and sophisticated and of a scale comparable to 9/11," US former homeland security chief, Michael Chertoff, sternly told The Guardian.

The terrorists had planned to conceal liquid explosives within drinks by drilling holes in the bottom of bottles - the contents of which were then to be replaced a hydrogen peroxide-based mixture, dyed to mimic the colour of the drinks, before being resealed in the unopened containers.

The highly unstable chemicals would then have been detonated mid-flight by suicide bombers, rupturing the fuselages of the commercial airlines and killing all those onboard as well as untold numbers on the ground.

In the aftermath of the 2006 arrests, airports were thrown into chaos as security alerts rippled around the globe about the hitherto unseen vulnerability. All containers exceeding 100ml were immediately banned from hand luggage within Europe and America – a measure that remains in place today.

But securing convictions against the terror plotters proved unexpectedly difficult. A lengthy retrial became necessary after the first jury found the three ringleaders guilty only of the lesser charge of conspiracy to murder, failing to conclusively prove the full scope of their plans.

It was ultimately records of coded emails sent by the three British terrorists to their Pakistan-based Al Qaeda backers, coupled with hours of surveillance footage and circumstantial evidence, which sealed their fate.

Click here to read the trail of emails between the UK and Pakistan

The primary recipient of these emails was Richard Rauf, a British man from Birmingham who relocated to Pakistan and was known to have established direct ties with the Al Qaeda leadership there. Indeed it was his arrest in 2006 which expedited the swoop on the British terrorists' home, with Scotland Yard fearing that the suspects could learn of his fate.

Mr Rauf subsequently fled Pakistani custody in an elaborate escape in 2007 - described by authorities as "mysterious" at the time - though it is believed that he was assassinated in a US drone attack one year later.

While the precise role he played in overseeing the foiled airliner plot may never be proven, separate evidence has emerged that Mr Rauf was one of the key players in the 7/7 bombings of 2005. MI5 and MI6 last year jointly wrote to Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee warning that they believed he was a significant "facilitator" of the deadly attacks.

In America, there is little doubt as to his involvement in the transatlantic plot. "Rauf was the link between the plotters and the Al Qaeda end," Mr Chertoff said. "We know there was a connection to Al Qaeda central."

It is an inevitable reality that in plots of this nature questions will remain unanswered about the specific machinations deployed by Osama bin Laden's seditious and ever-more innovative web of global conspirators.

But with the latest convictions by an independently minded jury of our peers, there can be little doubt as to the potency of the dangers facing us.

"This case reaffirms that we face a real and serious threat from terrorism," a relieved Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said after hearing today's news. "I cannot thank enough those involved for their professionalism and dedication in thwarting this attack, and saving thousands of lives."

Pro-Israel lobby: Obama supports 'ethnic cleansing'

2009-08-23T21:03:33+01:00

President Obama has come under fire from a hardline
pro-Israel group in America which is accusing him of supporting "ethnic cleansing" of Jews.

The Israel Project, which includes 20 members of Congress on its advisory board, issued a confidential report in January outlining how supporters can influence US public opinion during the new Obama term.

Marked "not for distribution or publication," the document tells activists that anyone who opposes settlement expansion on Palestinian land should be told they are supporting "ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews".

The revelation comes as Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to meet with US diplomats in London for a new wave of peace talks.

President Obama has made it a cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda that Israel must halt expansion of settlements on the West Bank and Gaza before efforts to broker a deal with the Palestinians can progress.

He told Mr Netanyahu in May that "settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward" – a request that the PM nimbly side-stepped by vowing to halt new construction but allow "natural growth" of existing outposts.

There are currently 500,000 Israelis living in more than 100 settlements that have been built on Palestinian land since 1967.

Successive Western governments have warned Israel that the settlements – illegal under international law – are a major obstacle to peace. But with hardline religious groups claiming biblical rights to all of Greater Israel, progress on dismantling them has been painstakingly slow.

Underscoring the gravity with which some Jews view the subject, The Guardian has now obtained copies of a memo in which members of The Israel Project give step-by-step guidelines for manipulating US public opinion.

Responding to President Obama's call for a halt to settlement expansion, the report states: "The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be Jews - that some areas have to be Jew-free - is a racist idea.

"We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel," it reassures US-based activists. "They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews."

This approach, supporters are told, is "the best settlement argument" for winning over would-be dissenters such as President Obama.

What's more, in a remarkably duplicitous admission, the leaked document goes on to warn activists that they should downplay any suggestion that religious motivation underpins their support for the settlements.

"You must avoid using Israel's religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land," it admonishes. "Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews."

The damaging report comes on the heels of a comparable outrage closer to home, in which Fox News commentator Glenn Beck enraged public opinion by calling President Obama a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people" – prompting 33 Fox advertisers to pull the plug on his show.

Mr Beck will return to work at the news station tomorrow after taking a hastily-arranged vacation. He was not disciplined for the outburst.

Oy vey! 90% of Palestinians 'have Jewish heritage'

2009-08-23T00:30:00+01:00

It's just about the last thing either side of the Middle East conflict wants to hear – that Palestinian Arabs have Jewish blood pumping through their veins.

With Arabs and Israelis spending the best part of the previous century trying to wipe each other of the map, it is not surprising that little time has been devoted to investigating their common ancestral ties.

But Tsvi Misinai has made it his life's work to explore the genealogical ties between the two historic enemies. And speaking to The Jerusalem Post this week, he revealed some startling details about their shared heritage.

Following years of research, Mr Misinai says he can claim with virtual certainty that 90 per cent of Palestinians are descended from Jews.

The expert insists that most Arabs living within Greater Israel – whether they reside in the Gaza, the West Bank or Israel Proper – are the descendents of Hebrews who managed to escape Roman-imposed exile.

Rather than leave their fatherland, those who stayed during the Byzantine era switched religions to become Christians. And then when the Ottomans conquered the region in the 15th century, they changed over to Islam.

Several centuries on, Mr Misinai contends, the Middle East is now the victim of history's worst ever case of inadvertent internecine.

He cites the example of Emir Faisal, the king of Iraq and Syria, who wrote in 1917 about the "racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people". The Emir's letters continued: "We are of the same race and blood, and cooperation will bring great prosperity to the land."

Faisal's dream of Judao-Arab kinship stemmed not just from idealism but also an informed understanding of his own personal ethnic roots.

The king's father was Hashemite, making him a direct descendent of the prophet Muhammed, but his mother's side included descendents from a family of forced converts to Islam who emigrated to the east bank of Jordan.

"Unlike today, when Faisal was growing up, his grandfather's mother's Jewish origin was known, and they made no great effort to hide it," Mr Misinai noted. "What was known to Faisal is known to many Palestinians today as well."

This subconscious awareness of ancestral ties is borne out in several Palestinian cultural practices – ranging from Jewish-style mourning rituals to linguistic traits – but in the MidEast few people care to acknowledge it.

One piece of evidence came to light in a study carried out in 2002 by Tel Aviv University. Researchers found that only two ethnic groups on the planet were vulnerable to inherited deafness syndrome. They were Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinian Arabs – with other Arabs lacking susceptibility.

But after decades of war, neither side as yet has shown much desire for fraternal reconciliation. Mr Misinai hopes that one day that will change.

"There are large clans throughout the country – in the Hebron Hills, in Samaria and among the Negev Beduin – who know of their heritage and even have family trees that document their roots," he told The Post.

"[They] have specifically Jewish customs, and their neighbours would call them 'the Jews,' even though they were ... as Muslim as anyone else."

What mercy for Lockerbie victims?

2009-08-22T16:31:36+01:00

As evidence of trade deals with Colonel Gaddafi emerge, Britain releases a Libyan mass murderer from jail on "compassionate grounds". But who gave mercy to the victims of Flight 103?

The release of Abdel Baset al Megrahi, the man responsible for the murder of 270 civilians in Lockerbie in 1988, is directly linked to oil negotiations with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

That's according to Seif al Islam, the son of the Libyan leader, who told state television that the "liberation" of the mass murderer – who is terminally ill with prostate cancer – was a direct consequence of top-level trade deals between his father and the former Labour Party administration.

Britain vehemently denied suggestions of a quid quo pro deal with Libya, insisting the release was handled solely by the devolved Scottish parliament. But with mass murderer al Megrahi receiving a hero's welcome in Tripoli, what mercy is there for the families torn apart by the atrocity?

Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the skies of Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, killing all 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.

It took more than a decade to convict anyone for the bombing, with al Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer and head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, being found guilty by a panel of Scottish Judges in 2001.

He was sentenced for life imprisonment for his role in Britain's worst ever mass murder. But despite strong opposition from victims' families and the US government, Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill this week took the controversial decision of allowing him to walk free after just eight years.

America's media was predictably incensed by the move. The Washington Times spoke of "waves of anguish [g]ripping the American families of Lockerbie victims" after al Megrahi was greeted with rapturous applause and doused in rose petals when he set foot on Libyan soil. To The Wall Street Journal, his release was nothing short of "a second Lockerbie outrage".

Those sentiments were driven home by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who called the stage-managed reception "outrageous and disgusting," but in Westminster the response was noticeably more muted. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to comment publicly at all.

And shedding some light on his reservation, evidence is now emerging of a possible political motivation for the unpopular release.

"In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, [al Megrahi] was always on the negotiating table," Libyan heir-to-the-throne Seif al Islam told state-run media. Singling out Tony Blair's involvement, he added: "All British interests were linked to the release of Abdul Baset Ali al Megrahi."

Sky News correspondent Tim Marshall lent credibility to the report by writing on his blog: "The British can now expect that doing business in Libya will become easier. On the energy front this is of enormous importance."

Libya has the highest proven oil reserves of any African nation, and with Anglo-Russian ties at an all-time low Britain is in desperate need of a reliable new energy partner. In 2006, the Arab pariah state was conveniently removed from the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which lifted restrictions on British energy companies tapping into Libyan reserves.

From a British standpoint, therefore, the release of a man who murdered 270 civilians – drawn from 21 countries around the globe – makes sound economic sense. But morally it remains utterly inexcusable.

Scant mercy was afforded to the 259 people whose final seconds were filled with the most unimaginable terror as Flight 103 broke up in mid-flight. Nor to the 11 people, among them three children, who were extinguished as wreckage from the plane crashed down on the streets of Lockerbie.

The lives that were snuffed out on December 21, 1988 will never be restored. But with a man behind bars for the atrocity, those who lost loved ones could, until now, at least find solace in his punishment.

Al Megrahi's release will be the final injustice they must endure. The mercy so deserved by them was afforded instead to a mass murderer – and pouring salt on their wounds, it once again appears that economic expedience and oil money have taken precedence over the ideals of British justice.

The Boston Herald morbidly summed up the situation by underscoring a key difference between the US and UK legal systems: "If the death penalty had been implemented, then there would have been no reason to release this murderer from prison on reasons of 'compassion'."

Photograph © British Crown

Communism: When you can't afford to wipe your ass

2009-08-09T03:16:44+01:00

Cubans were left sitting uncomfortably this week after news that the Caribbean island is suffering from a chronic shortage of toilet paper.

As is standard practice in the communist country, the price of 24 essential goods was artificially lowered recently to protect the spending power of ordinary citizens – long reeling from the dire economic situation.

But now state-run radio has unexpectedly declared that Cuba's supplies of toilet paper will run out before the end of the year, with levels of demand "presenting problems" and cashflow issues prohibiting new imports.

Cuba's economy has been decimated by years of crippling US embargos and hopeless fiscal policies by former President Fidel Castro.

Three hurricanes which struck last year - causing $10 billion (£6 billion) of damage - only worsened the situation, leaving the communist country heavily reliant on imports and incapable of producing adequate supplies at home.

But that economic climate took an unexpected turn last week when the country's state-run news agency announced a shortage of bog roll.

"The corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper," state-run conglomerate Cimex said, after admitting that Cuba lacked its own raw materials.

The country has been subject to strict commercial, economic and financial embargos since 1962. American President Barack Obama had initially voiced a desire to "recast" strained relations with the island, but six months into office few diplomatic voices on either side have voiced any optimism.

President Raul Castro, brother of the iconic former leader, cited a fine imposed on a Dutch company by Obama's administration as an example.

The US Office of Foreign Assets Control last month fined Philips Electronics of North America Corporation (PENAC), a subsidiary of the parent Dutch company, when a single employee visited the Communist country for business.

Aside from lifting travel restrictions on Cuban Americans, President Obama has done little to alleviate the decades-old stalemate. "The change announced by Barack Obama does not have much to do with the US-Cuba ties," Havana's state-run Granma newspaper snidely remarked last Friday.

President Castro seems equally pessimistic about the new US administration, warning citizens that despite any goodwill: "We have been forced to renegotiate debts, payments and other commitments with foreign companies."

Barring a change in relations, it appears those financial concerns will have to take precedence over the more basic needs of Cuba's "classless utopia".

The myth of the Islamification of Europe

2009-08-08T21:26:37+01:00

An alarming Youtube video that has received more than ten million views is stirring up anxieties about the Islamification of Europe, but as this report shows much of its data appears to have been fabricated.

Muslim Demographics makes some unsettling predictions about Europe's future, including that the continent will have an Islamic majority in a few decades. It bases its forecast on declining indigenous fertility rates, offset against the alleged Muslim average of 8.1 children per family.

"In a matter of years, Europe as we know it will cease to exist," an ominous sounding American speaker declares on the seven-and-a-half minute long Youtube hit, talking over Terminator-style doomsday beats.

Click here to watch Muslim Demographics (7:31)

The central premise of the video is that declining birth rates among indigenous Europeans are putting the future of Western civilisations at risk.

It notes that across all the countries in the EU, the average fertility rate is a mere 1.38 children per family – well below the minimum of 2.11 that is required to keep population levels stable over time.

Data from the CIA World Factbook confirms that the majority of these figures are accurate. "Yet the population of Europe is not declining," the speaker sourly notes, with the continent's Muslim population doubling since 1980 and set to double yet again – to 104 million – in the next 20 years.

In a nutshell, the video warns that Islam is taking over. And with ten million hits to date, it appears to have struck a chord with many viewers.

Supporters argue that Muslim Demographics tackles the uncomfortable realities facing Europe. But as this country-by-country breakdown shows, the video is littered with statistical errors and spurious inferences.

United Kingdom

In the UK, we are told, the Muslim population has risen from 82,000 to 2.5 million over just 30 years. Britain's 2001 census makes this seem plausible, recording 1.59 million Muslims – but previous censuses did not ask about religion, and no sources is given for the earlier figure of 82,000.

What the 1981 census did do is record ethnicity. And according to Dr Andrew Hinde, a demographer at Southampton University, it tallied somewhere in the region of 300,000 people from Pakistan and Bangladesh alone. Both countries are majority Muslim (96% and 88% respectively), which makes the figure of 82,000 a gross underestimate. The growth rate of Muslims in Britain is therefore significantly slower than the video suggests.

France

Another startling claim made in Muslim Demographics is that French Muslim families have a birth rate of 8.1 children, as compared with the national average of 1.8. Again, no source is provided for the data.

What we can verify, however, is that the country with the highest fertility rate in the world is Niger, where 7.75 children are born for every woman. This means that for the data in the video to be accurate, French Muslim women must be churning out babies at a faster rate than anywhere else on the planet. The two countries with which most Muslim immigrants to France have ties – Algeria and Morocco – have fertility rates of just 1.79 and 2.51.

A particularly revealing moment occurs when the speaker declares: "In just 39 years, France will be an Islamic Republic." What he means, of course, is that it will be a Muslim-dominated society. No attempt is made to clarify the difference between that and the political construct.

Russia

While talking about the rate of Muslim immigration to various European countries, the speaker states that there are now 23 million Muslims in Russia. But what he fails to note is that the former Soviet state includes republics such as Ingushetia and Chechnya, whose indigenous people converted to Islam as far back as the 15th century after warring with the Ottoman Empire.

Germany

Alongside the questionable statistics, the video also quotes a senior German politician, Walter Radermacher, former vice-president of the Federal Statistics Office, as saying that Germany in on-track to become a Muslim nation.

"The fall in the [German] population can no longer be stopped. Its downward spiral is no longer reversible," reads the uncontested part of Mr Radermacher's transcript. But the video controversially goes on to claim that the senior politician said Germany "will be a Muslim state by the year 2050".

Mr Radermacher denies ever making that claim. He told the BBC the quotation is "simply not true," adding: "There is no source which can be quoted that the German government has published such an expression or opinion."

Immigration and population decline are serious issues which affect the majority of European countries – a reality that was driven home this year by the rise of far-right, ultra-nationalist parties at EU elections.

The debate over these crucial topics must be conducted in an environment free from sensationalism and deliberate misinformation.

Tearing down the wall, in Baghdad

2009-08-06T00:21:53+01:00

The concrete blast walls that for years defined Baghdad's landscape and softened the almost daily thud of indiscriminate suicide bombings are to be torn down, Iraqi military sources confirmed today.

Major General Qassim al-Moussawi, the spokesman for the city's operations command centre, announced that every single one of the symbolically charged shock-absorbers will be dismantled within 40 days - restoring the character of the historic capital but also leaving it open to attack.

While his words stirred up anxiety among Baghdadis, supporters of the plan say it is a necessary first step towards normalcy in a city that since 2003 has been paralysed by an unrelenting wave of terrorism.

When sectarian suicide bombings reached their peak in 2005-06, the occupying US forces erected blast walls across the breadth of the city.

A series of bloody attacks on hotels, military barracks and police stations forced the coalition to roll out the bleak emblems of life in a warzone. Four metres high and weighing a tonne each, the slabs made neighbourhoods safer but also masked the character of Baghdad's streets.

In subsequent years, though, falling insurgent activity has allowed coalition forces to begin withdrawing from major cities. And according to the newly-empowered national government, the walls can go with them.

"It has been decided ... to lift all the concrete walls from the main and side streets of all Baghdad neighbourhoods ... and reopen them within 40 days," the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said in a decree.

His announcement, often hinted at before but never with an accompanying deadline, was reiterated by senior sources in the army. ''No exception will be made any place in Baghdad,'' Major General al-Moussawi confirmed.

The response among ordinary Iraqis has been a predictable mix of elation and anxiety. One taxi driver told the BBC that he welcomed the move as it would reduce traffic jams, but other Baghdadis voiced reservations.

"We need to keep roads as they are until the security forces are really capable of taking control," one warned. "I think the time has not come yet."

Last month's historic withdrawal of American troops from the capital prompted a dramatic upsurge in terror attacks. On Friday alone, 29 people were killed in a series of synchronised bombings targeting Shia mosques.

But the brutality and frequency of these attacks is something Iraqis have long been accustomed to. While few are naive enough to think that demolishing the walls will go unnoticed by Al Qaeda, many cling to the hope that opening up their communities may revitalise life in Baghdad.

It is not just hotels, embassies and army barracks that hide behind the walls. Nor are their shadows limited to motorways and banks.

The depressing reality is that whole neighbourhoods in all corners of the capital have gradually been sectioned off. The ubiquity of the blast walls has all but enshrined segregation in the city – forcing Baghdadis to accept the inevitability of religious, class-based and ethnic strife.

Tearing down the walls will undoubtedly cost lives in the short-term. It will open up opportunities for Al Qaeda to exploit the vulnerabilities of democratic, liberal ideals – just as it did in London, New York and Madrid.

But once the dust clouds have subsided, the next generation of Baghdadis will grow up with a new perspective of their city. An expansive viewpoint – enlightening far beyond mere line of sight – which was for decades denied to subjects of Saddam Hussein and the coalition.

The dismantling of the walls will allow Baghdad to take a tentative first step towards post-war life. Its success may depend on the ability of Iraq's disparate communities to overcome the lure of an unarmoured foe.

A young person's take on 'thriving local papers'

2009-07-28T23:28:10+01:00

This week's Economist carried an interesting article about the recession-busting success of a select few local newspapers in Britain. It caught my eye not because of the familiar incisiveness of its meandering, but more-regrettably due to the bone-headed idiocy of its logic.

"For all the woes of local newspapers across Britain, there are those that thrive," the curious little piece informed us, holding up the New Milton Advertiser as one such powerhouse of micro-news. "These papers ... are successful because they retain the best characteristics of their past," it sagely went on. "They cover the local news and politics which matter to people."

And lo, what front page scoop was selected from this sheet's archives as a prime example of such perspicacity? Why, none other than the earth-shattering story which no self-respecting resident of New Milton will ever forget: OVERGRAZING FEAR AS PRICE OF FOREST PONIES SET TO FALL.

Now I won't be facetious. There are, to be sure, people for whom the grazing habits of juvenile horses is a favourite topic of discussion. With not a single ounce of sarcasm I readily accept that it is as valid a source of debate as any of the vacuous drivel which preoccupies my thoughts.

But evidence of a resurgent press? Proof that the inefficient and antiquated practices of local media outlets are able to fend off the free-distribution and limitless-circulation model of online media? I think not.

The article made no attempt to disguise the fact that these rare examples of profit-making local newspapers are largely edited and read by people of a venerably advanced age. "The style and values of the papers are every bit as traditional as their 88-year-old proprietor," it said with regard to one such pair of papers, The Advertiser & Times.

But what it failed to seize upon – and what must surely be the crux of the matter for anyone curious about the decline of local news – is that towns such as Lymington and New Milton, where these papers go to press, are mere microcosms. They are relics of a dying breed of reporting, preserved solely by their coincidentally elderly population.

To uphold a newspaper edited by an 88-year-old and read largely by pensioners as a model for the future of local news is downright senile.

The Economist is of course seeking to stress the merits of good old-fashioned reporting, regardless of the subject matter's gravity. This is doubtless a noble cause, but look with less rose-tinted glasses at the page-filler strewn across such papers and you touch upon a harsher reality.

Consider the article's assertion that Tindle Newspaper-owner and fellow octogenarian Sir Ray Tindle "places great emphasis on reporting local news in an engaging way". Engaging. Fox News is engaging when it brands President Obama a socialist. So is Sky News when it refuses to switch off its BREAKING NEWS ticker, hours after the event; and The Daily Mail when it skilfully taps into the paranoid delusions of a xenophobic Middle Britain.

When these mainstream media outlets behave in such a way, many of us cry sensationalism. So why should we believe the New Milton Advertiser is being any less nefarious in its deployment of such tactics?

FOREST DRIVERS FACE THREAT OF SPEED GUN BLITZ bellows one of its front-page scoops. Only... it's not a blitz, is it? PEDALLERS BATTLE FOR GRAND PRIX GLORY shrills a juxtaposed sporting piece, similarly oblivious of the uninspired banality of its subject matter.

The truth, and one which the staff at The Economist may understandably be reluctant to admit, is that these papers are far from exceptional. It is alleged that they are successful "because they retain the best characteristics of their past". Wrong: the papers are suffocated by their past.

Here in the present, the broadband generation feels unconstrained by geographical borders. It views unfettered access to information as a given, and those among its ranks who care to seek out news instinctively look further afield than their backyard – casting their gaze on Westminster, or Sudan, or the International Space Station. If their attention happens to boomerang homewards, it does so enriched with a cynicism that easily deconstructs the vain sensationalism of desperate neighbourhood hacks.

This demographic doesn't give a fuck about the minutae of the town or village it was unfortunate enough to have been born in. The harsh reality is that most of its members will escape their birthplace at the first opportunity. And so to return to The Economist's original question – sincerely put – of how it is that some local papers are thriving, the answer is simple...

Their readers haven't died yet.