Anti-Semitism in Hungary – Márton's list

2012. november 29. 16:27

Adam LeBor
The Economist
When Márton Gyöngyösi, a member of the far-right Jobbik party, called in parliament for Hungarian Jews to be catalogued and screened as potential national security risks, it triggered a wave of revulsion and condemnation.

„Mr Gyöngyösi, 35, is a far cry from the stereotype of the ultra-right skinhead or boot-boy. He is well-dressed, articulate, speaks fluent English and is the son of a diplomat. He grew up in the Middle East and Asia, graduated from Trinity College, Dublin, with a degree in business and political science and worked as a tax advisor for KPMG. (...)

Mr Gyöngyösi later backtracked and said he believed that only those Jews who were dual Hungarian-Israeli citizens should be screened. 'I apologise to my Jewish compatriots for my equivocal statement,' he said.

Either way, Jobbik is out of tune with its potential allies across Europe. As Joshua Keating at Foreign Policy points out, the “old-school anti-Semitism” of the Hungarian right is no longer in fashion with parties of the far right across Europe. Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party is a staunch supporter of Israel. Even the British National Party, an ally of Jobbik, has made several, albeit unconvincing, attempts to remodel itself as welcoming Jewish members.”

Az eredeti, teljes írást itt olvashatja el.

Összesen 30 komment

Jelenleg csak a hozzászólások egy kis részét látja.
Hozzászóláshoz és a további kommentek megtekintéséhez lépjen be, vagy regisztráljon!

A kommentek nem szerkesztett tartalmak, tartalmuk a szerzőjük álláspontját tükrözi.

Listen dude.

Our slovak neighbor has just accepted a law, which not only lists everyone with other citizenship, but take their Slovak citizenship. All citizens with other citizenship lose the Slovak one.

So I give you a short comparison, and will ask you one simple question.

Case A: One would like to now if someone has other citizenship in the Parliament of the country. No disadvantage, no consequence, only one single deputate of the parliament poses this question.

Case B: A law has been adopted (not only the wish of one single deputate, but an accepted law!) which has serious consequences, serious disadvantages to those who have any other citizenship, AND it is not only in the Parliament but in the whole country.

And the question: why is the case B the "inner business" of a country, and the case A an international scandal?

In my opinion B is much stronger...

Hozzászóláshoz és a további kommentek megtekintéséhez lépjen be, vagy regisztráljon!


Ajánljuk még a témában