Germany investigates alleged support of Hamas

The Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community of Germany said it launched investigations of alleged support of Hamas against German charity organizations Ansaar International and WWR-Help. Germany’s Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer said about the counter-Hamas operation: „Who supports Hamas under the guise of humanitarian aid, disregards fundamental values in our constitution*, thereby discrediting the commitment of many aid organizations which act neutrally under difficult conditions.“

German police said it has raided around 90 properties including offices and homes in nine states across Germany. Abu Rahma, head of Ansaar International in Düsseldorf, said police officers were brutally invading private houses of family members allegedly affiliated with Ansaar International, traumatizing women and children during the raids. Abu Rahma denied the support of terrorist organizations. He said his charity work is negatively affected by terminated bank accounts through German banks Postbank, Volksbank, N26, Sparkasse and Kreissparkasse. Banks declined to comment.

WWR-Help said it „has never contacted, supported or promoted terrorist or extremist organizations or persons and vehemently rejects such action!“ It was their goal „to help needy people directly with donations … independent of nationality, ethnicity, religion of these needy people.“

Janine Abuayyash, head of WWR-Help in Neuss, said Paypal suspended the WWR-Help Paypal account and her private Paypal account. Volksbank terminated her private bank account. „Now we ask all supporters and friends urgently for support and solidarity“, said Abuayyash who is a dental technician, not a dental assistant as German media outlets falsely referred to her.

Dr. Jörg Geerlings, lawmaker of the governing Christian party, was in Neuss a few hours before the raid at WWR-Help headquarter in Neuss started. Geerlings posted on Facebook that he had a dinner in Neuss shortly before the raid. He said at the dinner: „Terrorism is directed against our liberal democratic constitution*. The state must oppose these attacks and we must not let our own way of life take over.“

Ansaar International and WWR-Help are not the only charity associations under attack in Germany because of their donations to Palestinians. According to a source, the German branch of international humanitarian relief organisation WEFA has considered to terminate projects in Palestine because of being afraid of repressions by German authorities. Also the outlawed Turkish-German association İHH – not to be confused with the Turkish NGO İHH – without success struggled for eight years at court against its ban in Germany.

On May 31, 2010, the İHH Turkey-owned passenger ship MV Mavi Marmara and additional vessels of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla were boarded by Israeli forces in international waters. Three weeks later on 23 June 2010, the Federal Ministry of the Interior of Germany banned İHH in Germany. The Federal Ministry of the Interior of Germany ordered the monitoring of the telephone connections of members and employees of İHH. Germany confiscated the property of İHH. There was no prior hearing of the accused organization İHH because „the success of the seizure was otherwise threatened“, according to the Federal Constitutional* Court of Germany.

In 2012, the İHH prohibition order was confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court of Germany. In August 2018, the Federal Constitutional* Court of Germany confirmed the İHH prohibition order for alleged „support of Hamas“.

İHH was allegedly „against the idea of ​​international understanding and it contributed to the violence perpetrated by Hamas against the Israeli people by providing long-term and substantial financial support to social clubs in Palestine, which are attributable to Hamas. Hamas denies Israel’s right to exist and acts in an aggressive and militant way to fight members and institutions of the Israeli state with terrorist means. Their military, political and social components were merged“, said the verdict of the Federal Constitutional* Court of Germany confirming the İHH ban in Germany.

In its verdict, the Federal Constitutional* Court of Germany said that members of İHH’s board of trustees were allegedly affiliated to Millî Görüş.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu criticized Germany for banning İHH while remaining silent on the PKK terror against Turks and against Muslims in Germany.

Germany keeps the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas in its terror list despite strong objections by Hamas which describes itself as a national liberation movement practicing all types of legitimate resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The German government has been a strong supporter of Israel who is accused of committing international crimes as crimes against humanity and genocide.

Currently, a preliminary examination is ongoing by the International Criminal Court prosecutor focused on alleged crimes committed by Israeli forces in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since 13 June 2014.

İHH, Millî Görüş, WEFA, WWR-Help, Ansaar International and other organizations are targeted by Germany just because of their peaceful support for the people of Palestine. Organizations as İHH were prohibited on the basis of the German Associations Act because of allegedly „contravening the concept of international understanding“. As it is publicly known, Germany supports the Israeli government and armed forces militarily and financially.

Germany’s militarily and financially support for the Israeli government and armed forces are not seen by Germany’s court as contravening the concept of international understanding, despite the fact that Israel’s government and armed forces continuously violate International Humanitarian Law.

If the International Criminal Court in The Hague convicts Israeli officials of committing international crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory, Germany finally has to stop its support for Israel and to stop its repression policy against charity organizations which donate humanitarian aide for Palestine.

*Germany has no constitution. Germany has a Basic Law. The term constitution was deliberately avoided by the drafters of the Basic Law. The Basic Law of Germany is a provisional interim arrangement until the people of Germany would adopt a constitution.

Article 146 of Germany’s Basic Law says: „This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany applies to the entire German people, shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect.“

The Basic Law was never submitted to a popular vote. Therefore, until today, Germany remains without a constitution.

Musterbeispiel für den Versuch, auf dem Weg über die Politik kontinuierlich fließende Einnahmen zu generieren

Unter der Anschrift, an der das BERKELEY INTERNATIONAL FRAMING INSTITUTE eröffnete, findet sich noch der Briefkasten der Trust The Process GmbH.
Kunden-Parkplätzen auf dem Gelände, auf dem das BERKELEY INTERNATIONAL FRAMING INSTITUTE eröffnete.

Nachdem berichtet wurde, daß ARD das BERKELEY INTERNATIONAL FRAMING INSTITUTE mit 120.000 Euro für ein 87-seitiges FRAMING­-MANUAL bezahlt habe, wollte ich das Institut in Berlin besuchen, aber fand nur Briefkästen, unter anderem den der Trust The Process GmbH.

„Damit das Forschen in Berkeley nicht im Elfenbeinturm bleibt. FRAMING INSTITUTE Launch in Berlin, cognitive science to the people!“, kommentiert Direktorin Eva Elisabeth Wehling die Eröffnung ihres Instituts mit Günter Wallraff an der Geschäftsanschrift der Trust The Process GmbH.

Bevor ich auf Wehlings Selbstdarstellung eingehe, eine wissenschaftliche Einschätzung ihrer Arbeit durch Dr. Robert E. Wright, Inhaber des Nef Family Lehrstuhls für Volkswirtschaft an der Augustana-Universität in den USA. Er sagt über das FRAMING­-MANUAL Unser gemeinsamer, freier Rundfunk ARD:

„Das ist ganz offensichtlich eine Art Lehrbuch für politische Rhetorik oder ‚spin‘ wie wir auf Amerikanisch sagen. Die Kunst, Worte zu verwenden, um das Publikum zu überzeugen, in Begriffen zu denken, die ein bestimmtes Ziel haben. Hier: die Erhaltung der ARD. Die Autorin ist ziemlich gut mit ihrer Methode.

Die Unmoral ist für mich die Verwendung öffentlicher Gelder, um Ratschläge zu erhalten, wie man noch mehr Geld aus öffentlichen Kassen bekommt. Man wünschte sich, daß es eine rechtliche oder praktische Grenze gibt, was die ARD auf diese Weise ausgeben kann.

Wenn Sie die ARD so behandeln, wie Sie jedes andere Konsumgut behandeln, dann sieht das Ganze aus wie eine Art von Steuer, die der Staat erhebt.

Die Verfasserin der Studie schlägt ARD vor, den Rahmen (framevom Individuum weg und in Richtung Nation verändern. Sie sollten also ehrlicherweise Ihre 17,90 Euro Rundfunkgebühr pro Monat für das Wohl des Vaterlandes zahlen, genau wie andere Steuern.

Wissenschaftler heute haben zwei Ziele: sie wollen ihre Karriere voranbringen, und sie wollen von solchen ideologischen Gruppe gehört (und belohnt) werden, die sich bestimmte Ergebnisse wünschen.

In dem Maße, in dem das Ergebnis systemkonform ist, wird es als ‚brillant‘ bezeichnet, und Jobs, Zuschüsse, Auszeichnungen und dergleichen beginnen zu fließen.

Ich finde es sehr viel besser, wenn wir den Begriff ‚Wahrheit‘ so benutzen, wie er ganz allgemein früher benutzt wurde, bevor Habermas ihn neu bestimmte. Das macht aber ganz schön viel Mühe! Die Werkzeuge zu nutzen, die die Wissenschaft zur Erkenntnis der Tatsachen bereithält, erfordert viel Arbeit, meistens haben wir dazu keine Lust.

Diese Studie über die ARD ist geradezu ein Musterbeispiel für den Versuch, auf dem Weg über die Politik kontinuierlich fließende Einnahmen zu generieren, und für die Ressourcen-Verschwendung, die mit solchen ‚Studien‘ einhergeht.

Dauerhaften materiellen Gewinn zu erzielen ist hier, wie auch sonst oft, der Versuch, etwas zu bekommen, ohne dafür etwas zu leisten.

So etwas funktioniert nur, wenn ein Gesetz eine Gruppe zu Lasten einer anderen bevorzugt. Solche dauerhaften materiellen Transfers werden häufig versteckt: zum Beispiel in Verordnungen, oder in der Steuergesetzgebung. Aber hier ist gar nichts versteckt! Hier läuft es offen und ganz direkt.

Dabei geht viel an Ressourcen verloren – nämlich all die Energie, die in die Erhaltung und Verstetigung dieses Ressourcen-Transfers investiert werden muß. Zum Beispiel in so eine Studie.

Die Studie behauptet nicht, eine wissenschaftliche zu sein – aber im Ergebnis bestätigt sie, was wir eigentlich schon wissen: daß die Massen dumm sind, und ganz leicht manipuliert werden können, wenn man Wörter und Blickwinkel auch nur ein bißchen verändert.“

Eine ARD-Sprecherin sagt: „2017 hatte der MDR als ARD-Vorsitz die Sprachforscherin Wehling um ihre wissenschaftliche Einschätzung gebeten. Die Kosten für den Erstellungsprozess mit begleitenden Workshops und die Arbeitsunterlage selbst beliefen sich auf 90 000 Euro, die der MDR als ARD-Vorsitzanstalt bezahlt hat. Weitere 30 000 Euro hat das ARD-Generalsekretariat für Folgeworkshops bezahlt.“

Wer hat diese Beträge in Höhe von 120.000 Euro genehmigt? Wurde sorgfältig geprüft, ob die Beträge angemessen sind?

Die Homepage vom BERKELEY INTERNATIONAL FRAMING INSTITUTE verlinkt auf Wehlings Internetseite und nett sie Gründerin als auch Direktorin sowie George Lakoff als Fellow des Instituts.

Lakoff ist eine Koryphäe auf dem Gebiet der Kognitionslinguistik. DER SPIEGEL schreibt am 23.02.2019 über ihn, „Lakoff werde als einer der wichtigsten Intellektuellen des Jahrhunderts in die Geschichte eingehen“ (Seite 124).

Es erstaunt, daß Wehlings Internetseite, die zahlreiche Tätigkeiten und Referenzen erwähnt, unter anderem Kollaborationen mit Open Society Foundations von George Soros, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung und Bertelsmann Stiftung, das von ihr gegründete Institut gänzlich unerwähnt lässt. Dafür erwähnt Wehling fünf andere Institute, mit denen sie zu tun hatte.

Da das BERKELEY INTERNATIONAL FRAMING INSTITUTE einen so berühmten Fellow wie Lakoff vorzuweisen hat, zeugt es von außerordentlicher Bescheidenheit, dass Wehling ihr Institut auf ihrer Homepage nicht erwähnt.

Wehling schreibt auf ihrer Website, sie sei Mitgründerin und Mitherausgeberin der „internationalen Fachzeitschrift Moral Cognition and Communication“. Die beim Verleger John Benjamins für dieses Projekt zuständige Mitarbeiterin sagt: „Es stellte sich heraus, dass die Qualität der Beiträge nicht unseren Standards entsprach.“ Daher sei die Zeitschrift nie erschienen.

Ein dem Projekt eingebundener Wissenschaftler sagt über die Zusammenarbeit mit Wehlings Projekt, dies sei „die zweit enttäuschendste Episode in meiner über 20-jährigen Karriere“ gewesen.

Merkel stepping down may become turning point in Germany

The step down of Angela Merkel will become a political turning point in Germany. Merkel has welcomed around one million migrants to Germany since 2015. Her humanitarian commitment was merciful. Now Merkel’s party CDU will shift right – closer to AFD.

Today, chancellor Angela Merkel said she would not seek re-election as chairwoman of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in December. She also said she would not stand again as chancellor candidate, nor as a candidate for the Federal parliament Bundestag, and she would not seek any further political offices.

Merkels stepping down marks a turning point in German politics. Her decision becomes the beginning of a new political era in Germany after Merkel will have served as a chairwoman of the Christian Democrats for 18 years and as a chancellor of Germany for 16 years.

Yesterday, the CDU and its Federal coalition partner Social Democrats (SPD) lost around 23 points at the Hesse State elections compared with the last Hesse vote in 2013. The Social Democrats suffered a historical drop, claiming 19.8 percent of the vote — the party’s worst result in Hesse since 1946. Merkel’s Federal ally Christian Social Union (CSU) suffered its worst election result since 1950 at Bavaria State elections two weeks ago.

Merkel’s CDU, her ally CSU and her coalition partner SPD are now all considered to become major parties in transition. Germany’s party system is under way to become more influenced by minor parties. The Greens, the Liberals, the Left and the Right will become more important.

Today, the anti-migration and anti-Islam political party Alternative for Germany (AFD) has 188 lawmakers in the German State assemblies, 94 lawmakers in the Bundestag and seven lawmakers in the European Parliament. In conclusion, the AFD has 289 lawmakers elected by the people of Germany. This is a massive political shift to the far-right in Germany.

I have admired Merkel for her open borders policy. In 2015, Germany accepted around one million refugees during what Merkel described as ‘extraordinary’ circumstances. Merkel said refugees would be welcomed and she was highly respected by foreign states for her humanitarian commitment.

Merkel was often called „the mother of the nation“ in Germany. I am calling Merkel the mother of refugees. This humanitarian commitment would not have happened without Merkel and her decision to open the borders..

Mr Friedrich Merz is seeking election as CDU party chair in December. Since 2016, Mr Merz is the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of BlackRock Germany.

CSU party chairman Horst Seehofer has always been the political opponent against Merkel’s open borders policy.

AFD party chairman Alexander Gauland said that Chancellor Merkel’s misguided refugee policy would be a gift to the AfD.

In my eyes, the combination of a Seehofer-led CSU, a Gauland-led AFD and a supposed Merz-led CDU is not a good assumption for migrants in Germany because they do not have a strong political party that protects them. If AFD would rule Germany in a coalition with the conservative parties CDU and CSU, then migrants will most probably If AFD would rule Germany in a coalition with the conservative parties CDU and CSU, then migrants will most probably suffer a setback.

Around 20 million migrants live in Germany. Around five million of them are Muslims. No Muslim or Migrant party has a lawmaker in a parliament wether on State level nor on Federal level nor on European level. When Merkel leaves office, it is the right time for the first lawmaker of a Muslim or Migrant party to advocate minority rights in Germany.

„Your native country is waiting“ says this T-Shirt

4. Polizeieinsatz während des Gedenkens an Nidal Rabih

Heute ist der 40. Todestag des Palästinensers Nidal Rabih, der im Beisein seiner Kinder und Ehefrau durch mehrere Attentäter mit acht Schüssen ermordet wurde. Anstatt mit aller Kraft nach den Tätern zu fahnden, behelligte die Polizei bereits vier Mal die trauernden Hinterbliebenen mit Polizeieinsätzen.

Thousands attend funeral of Nidal Rabih

Tatsächlich geschah es heute bereits zum vierten Mal, daß sich Familie Rabih nach Nidals Ermordung durch die Polizei gestört fühlte.

Das erste Mal fühlte sich Familie Rabih gestört durch den großen Polizeieinsatz während Nidals Beerdigung auf dem islamischen Friedhof in Berlin.

Das zweite Mal fühlte sich Familie Rabih gestört durch den Polizeieinsatz während der Übermalung von Nidals Wandbild am Tatort des Attentats.

Das dritte Mal fühlte sich Familie Rabih gestört durch den Polizeieinsatz während ihres Protests gegen die aus ihrer Sicht zu langsam vorankommenden Ermittlungen. Letzten Sonntag blockierte die Polizei für Autos die einzige Straße, die zum Protest führte.

Das vierte Mal fühlte sich Familie Rabih gestört durch den heutigen Polizeieinsatz in der Moschee.

Bei Nidals Vater entsteht der Eindruck, die Polizei respektiere nicht die Trauer um seinen Sohn.

Nidals Vater Mahmud sagte heute zu den Polizisten: „Ich habe meinen Sohn verloren! Suchen Sie die Mörder meines Sohnes anstatt unser Gedenken an den Toten zu stören!“

Vor der Moschee standen weitere Polizisten, die von Mahmud Rabih kritisiert wurden für die noch nicht durchgeführte Verhaftung der Mörder.

Die Familie Rabih machte nichts anderes in der Moschee als gemeinsam das Nachmittagsgebet und verrichten und aus dem Edlen Quran zu lesen. Nichts anderes wurde getan in dieser Moschee.

Nidals Vater Mahmud saß neben einem Sheikh, der die Surah Al-Baqarah las und als mit den Trauernden die Bittgebete für Nidals Seelenheil sprach. Dann kamen zwei Polizisten in die Moschee und verlangten nach dem Sheikh. Weitere Polizisten waren vor der Moschee im Einsatz.

Die Polizisten in der Moschee fragten, ob für dieses Toten-Gedenken eine Genehmigung vorliege?

Seit wann brauchen Muslime für das Verrichten des Gebets und für das Lesen des Qurans eine Genehmigung? Seit wann kontrolliert die Polizei in einer Moschee?

Die Moschee ist ein Ort des Glaubens. An diesem Ort sollen Muslime ungestört ihren Glauben leben.

Respekt vor dem Glauben erwarte ich auch von der Polizei. Die Polizei soll die Religionsfreiheit schützen und nicht verletzen.

Lesen Sie auch meine anderen Artikel, die ich über Nidal Rabih geschrieben habe:

Gerechtigkeit für Nidal Rabih

Nidal-Wandbild übermalt

Tausende trauern am Grabe von Nidal Rabih

Neuköllner Bürgermeister unterdrückt Journalisten

German Foreign Minister reconsiders trip to Saudi-Arabia

Today, in relation to the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said at a press conferece inside the State Department:

„Related to Saudi-Arabia, this incident is and stays worrying.

The accusations which came up are alarming and disturbing, I have to admit.

I told my counterpart in Saudi-Arabia very clear our expectations that this case has to be clarified completely.

Those that are responsible must be held accountable.

Therefore, we declared a statement at the last weekend during the G 3 meeting with France and UK.

Yesterday we also released a joint communique as G7 regarding this question. We made clear how worried we are.

We will follow very closely the results of the of the Turkish and Saudi joint investigation team.

We want to know what was happening.

As soon as we will know what was happening, we will execute the necessary consequences.

We will not accept that journalists become more and more into danger around the whole world because of their work. And this applies for Saudi-Arabia as well.

And regarding my travel plans to Saudi-Arabia: We had indeed planned a trip to Saudi Arabia in the context of the dialogue with Saudi Arabia.

We will wait on that now. The Saudi side plans a statement (on the affair), and we will use that as a basis for deciding whether a trip makes sense or not at the current time.“

Merkel soll im Bundestag über Khashoggi sprechen

Morgen wird Angela Merkel im Bundestag ihre Regierungserklärung abgeben. Ich erwarte von der Kanzlerin, daß sie morgen zum Mord an Jamal Khashoggi Stellung bezieht. Khashoggis Ermordung verlangt nach einer scharfen Reaktion der Bundesregierung.

Dieses unfassbare Verbrechen an Jamal Khashoggi ist nicht nur ein Mord, sondern ein Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit und gegen die Pressefreiheit.

Daher erwarte ich, daß Angela Merkel eine klare Haltung zum Fall Khashoggi einnimmt und Gerechtigkeit für Jamal Khashoggi einfordert.

Die Verantwortlichen für diese grausame Tat müssen zur Verantwortung gezogen werden.

Ich erwarte auch, daß sich der Bundestag morgen über die Rolle von Saudi-Arabien bei diesem Mordfall ausspricht. Die Abgeordneten sollten morgen über einen Abbruch der diplomatischen Beziehungen zu Saudi-Arabien und über einen sofortigen Stopp aller Waffenlieferungen nach Saudi-Arabien abstimmen.

Wenn Deutschland ab sofort keine Waffen mehr nach Saudi-Arabien liefern würde, könnte dies auch den Opfern des Krieges im Jemen zu Gute kommen.

Während der Aussprache müsste daher auch die Rolle von Saudi-Arabien beim Krieg im Jemen beleuchtet werden.

Merkel must demand accountability for Saudi Arabia’s behavior

This morning, Turkish and Saudi teams that were investigating the disappearance of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, left the Saudi consulate in Istanbul after a nine-hour search of the building.

CNN says that Saudi Arabia was preparing a report that would acknowledge Mr
Khashoggi was killed „as the result of an interrogation that went wrong“. The Saudi government did not yet comment.

If Mr Khashoggi was killed in the Saudi consulate, it would be a homicide and a crime against humanity as well as against the freedom of the press.

Defending the freedom of expression and a free press and ensuring the protection of journalists must be key priorities for Germany. These human rights were presumably violated by Saudi-Arabia.

Therefore, I ask Angela Merkel for demanding accountability for Saudi Arabia’s behavior. Chancellor Merkel must act now on behalf of the German people who cannot accept the commitment of such a crime.

An international investigation of the supposed crime must be ongoing. There are many questions to investigate:

  • Why one might need a tactical team of 15 Saudis, flown into Turkey and armed with saws, to conduct an interrogation? This might sound much more like a premeditated murder.
  • How could on 1) interrogate, 2) torture, 3) kill and 4) dismember a person in less than two hours if one didn’t intend to do it?
  • According to media reports, the alleged perpetrators arrived in a private jet and commercial planes, stayed in two different hotels, travelled in seven cars and left the country the same day. Doesn’t it seem to be well organized in advance?

Today, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will have dinner with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after meeting with King Salman in Riyadh, according to reporters traveling with him, to discuss the disappearance of Mr Khashoggi.

The riyal sunk to a two-year low of 3.7526 against the U.S. dollar. The supposed killing of Mr Khashoggi on 2 October 2018 could hurt foreign investment in Saudi Arabia and sanctions my be imposed as long as Saudi Arabia does not hold accountability for its behavior.

Actor Gerard Butler said he canceled an upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia because it felt like an “incredibly insensitive” time to visit.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Mr Butler said once his team was informed of what was happening, “it just didn’t feel like a good time to be getting involved. It just didn’t seem like a situation that we would want to get into and as that situation hasn’t concluded, and there are no definite answers, and it’s not for me to be coming up with solutions.“

Bavaria election marks crisis of major parties

It is a further erosion of Germany’s political mainstream. Former major party SPD got only 9,7 % of the votes. CSU suffered their worst election result since 1950 and is now considered to be a major party in transition.

This election indeed marks a crisis of major parties. Minor parties as the Greens (17,5 %) and Free Voters (11,6 %) are benefiting from the crisis of major parties.

Free Voters have won votes where CSU has lost them. Free Voters are strong in the countryside. They were established in communities and villages as secessions of the CSU. Free Voters became CSU’s most likely coalition party.

The outcome of Bavaria state elections shows a trend for Germany. Germany’s whole party system is under way to become more influenced by minor parties.

Bavaria election is also a further shift to the far-right. The far-right is pleased about 21,8 % as both right-wing parties Free Voters got and AFD of the votes.

AFD (10,2 %) is now in 16 of 17 assemblies on Federal and on State level. In two weeks the State election of Hesse will take place. ADF will have entered all 17 assemblies on Federal and State level.

Economically the outcome will not affect Turkey because both Bavaria and Germany are still interested in growing trade relations and direct investments between the countries.

But refugee politics in Germany might become more difficult because AFD and Free Voters are both for restrictions against migration.

Also religions and foreigners politics may become more difficult because AFD wants to restrict the rights of Muslims in Bavaria state as well as in whole Germany.

Merkel’s position is considerably weakened by the outcome of this election. Voters had lost trust in both Bavarian State government and in Merkel’s federal government.

Bavaria election raising tensions in Berlin. 1) The outcome will stoke infighting in the faction of the conservative parties at Federal Parliament „Bundestag“. 2) The outcome will stoke infighting within the governmental coalition of the Christian Unions and the Social Democrats.

How did the Greens become successful in Bavaria?

The Greens are the big winner in Bavaria election. The Greens come second after CSU.

The Greens have started as left-wing oriented in the late 70s and 80s, they became more central oriented in the 90s and liberal in the late 90s. Now they are even partly conservative. In March 2011 (two weeks after the Fukushima nuclear disaster had begun), the Greens made large gains in the states of Rhineland-Palatinate and in Baden-Württemberg. In Baden-Württemberg they became the senior partner in a governing coalition for the first time. Since 2011, Winfried Kretschmann is the first Green to serve as Minister-President of a German State. The Greens of Bavaria are mostly central oriented.

At the ballot box in Bavaria,

1) the Greens were benefiting from urbanization. 1.5 million Germans moved to Bavaria from other states in the past ten years. In urban areas, the Greens got more than 30 % of the votes. In Bavaria, the first vote allows the elector to vote for a direct candidate who applies for a direct mandate in the assembly. For the first time, the Greens got five direct mandates in Munich.

2) the Greens were benefiting from their protest agains the new Bavarian police task act. In May, Bavaria’s state legislature passed a controversial law expanding police powers in Bavaria. Citizens now can be arrested for three months without the verdict of a judge. Greens attacked the bill as draconian and warned it could become a blueprint for expanded police powers across Germany. Greens were among the organizers of biggest Munich protest in years against this hard-line CSU police bill.

3) the Greens were benefiting from their ecologist campaigns against nuclear power energy and against impervious surfaces.