From Ynet via Loewenstein:
Of Geert 'I'm in love with Israel' Wilders you really get the impression that he's a buffoon of unprecedented proportions of the kind that worryingly seems to increasingly make inroads into the political culture of quite a few European countries. Wilders claims to have nothing against Muslims (presumably like Griffin who 'has nothing against people of colour' - oh, and Muslims too) but considers the Qu'ran comparable to Mein Kampf and calls for it to be banned from Europe...
Like many deeply Conservative politicians with things to say about Israel/Palestine, Wilders, presumably for demagogic reasons, resorts to promoting 'remedies' he knows damn well aren't going to work and won't be implemented before all hell freezes over.
Geert Wilders, who leads the right-wing Party for Freedom (PVV) in Holland, said last week he believes Jordan should be renamed Palestine. The Jordanian government responded by saying Wilders’ speech was reminiscent of the Israeli right wing.
“Jordan is Palestine,” said Wilders, who heads the third-largest party in Holland. “Changing its name to Palestine will end the conflict in the Middle East and provide the Palestinians with an alternate homeland.” Wilders added that Israel deserved a special status in the Dutch government because it was fighting for Jerusalem in its name. “If Jerusalem falls into the hands of the Muslims, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory but rather an ideological battle, between the mentality of the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism,” he said. “There has been an independent Palestinian state since 1946, and it is the kingdom of Jordan.” Wilders also called on the Dutch government to refer to Jordan as Palestine and move its embassy to Jerusalem.
The PVV has been going from strength to strength, going recently from 9 parliamentary seats to 24...
Update:
Sensing that Melanie Phillips might rise to the bait, I took a quick look and Bingo! Phillips is normally hard to pin down for her anti-Arab racism because she usually carefully skirts around the Palestinian issue. But people who consider the Occupied West Bank 'Disputed Territory' usually aren't great fans any solution that involves/includes Palestinians. Does that make her a racist? Of course. It means that in Phillips' mind Palestinian rights must be negated because unlike the Zionists they're not a Real People (with a Real Religion and a Real Language). Politely put, the Palestinians must make room for the Real Indigenous People of Eretz Israel. Put slightly more brutally: the sandniggers must clear off for the Greater Good of the new Herrenvolk.
Here she is, replete the infamous 'Trouw' quote (an 'argument' I really thought had been relegated to the open sewers of the American Conservative Zionist blogosphere a long time ago).
It's official Mad Mel, you're a transferist! Arabs to the East!
8 Comments:
So there are good Geerts too. Is there a difference in pronunciation?
More importantly, do you mean to say that you're only one vowel away from being on the team?
Then we should call Holland "Germany".... since Holland's economy totally depends on the German government....
What is absolutely amazing is how they give this psychopathic buffoon any voice in the political arena???
Nevin:
Scapegoatism works for some politicians. Many in Holland feel that their particular form of liberalism has 'gone too far' and are now suggesting the country go completely the opposite way. My prognosis is that while this type of fascism is on the rise, the political pendulum will eventually swing back. In the mean time things may get worse before they get any better...
It's just a shame commenter Daniel, an Israeli Jew, can't see that what Wilders is thinking about Islam is analogous to what so many in the past claimed about Judaism. In a previous life Wilders would have been a 20th century fascist. Now he's a 21th century fascist, cloaking himself in the banner of 'Freedom'. His 'freedom' that is...
Daniel:
Perhaps you can explain what is good about 'being on the team'? Wilders is clearly advocating population transfer. I'm still waiting, but no longer with baited breath, for the second installment of your 'personal political manifesto'. Is it possible that you too advocate such a 'solution'?
I'm referring to the first installment you made over at Richard Millett's place.
I'm sure that I published two installments.
Anyway, if I'm wrong this was the second:
Hi Gert,
I hope I'll be able to get this off before Shabbat. I have twenty minutes and my cooking is done.
Last time we said that, "….we are talking first and foremost about what might have once been a political conflict but is today a religious conflict, or at least a conflict of religions."
You are probably saying, "So what? What do I care if the conflict is political, religious or anything else? What difference does it make? Israel must pull back to the Green Line and then they'll be peace."
And you're right too in a sense, Gert. In order to make war it really matters little what the nature of the conflict is. A gun is a gun and a tank is a tank.
However making peace is a different matter. The cessation of hostilities between two warring parties will usually either come about when one side is victorious, or when both sides determine that they now have more to gain from declaring a ceasefire or even making peace. Since, clearly, at this point in time Israel's enemies are unable to bring about her destruction or force her surrender, and since, though Israel is reported to have weapons of mass destruction she apparently chooses not to use them to force her enemies surrender, it appears that an end to the conflict will only come about by the latter means. In other words, in order for peace to be made an understanding is required by both sides of the others religious aspirations and an attempt must be made to find a formula acceptable both to Islam and to Judaism.
Compromise is far more problematic is religious than in political questions as both sides see themselves doing the will of God and so concession could mean his betrayal. Compounding the problem, Judaism and Islam are both intellectually "pluralistic" religions in the sense that while they both believe in only one God and one truth but both Jews and Moslems are not in total agreement among themselves as to what these truths are. While in Judaism such arguments are usually verbal, in Islam they are often the direct or indirect cause of wars between different sects of Islam.
You wrote in an early posting that the Zionist claim to be concerned about security is a façade and that truthfully we care about a Greater Israel. While nobody has used that expression for many decades, there is much truth in what you say.
Almost by definition a political conflict struggle requires a day by day, hour by hour assessment and reassessment of the advantages and disadvantages of its continuation, escalation or termination. In a religious conflict rarely so such assessments take place.
I read your posting about Geert Wilders with interest, likewise I read about him on Wikipedia and some links that they provided. As you might have guessed this was my first exposure to him.
I understand that you disagree with his opposition to Islam and his support of Israel.
Do you consider his views to be in some way illegitimate?
Daniel:
"I understand that you disagree with his opposition to Islam and his support of Israel."
There's nothing wrong with critiquing Islam but in all seriousness comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf and on those grounds calling for the book to be banned is seriously whacky to say the least. I'm surprised you even have to think twice about that: if you're remotely that way inclined then the presence of these 'Mein Kampf adulators' in your own country must be intolerable!
Likewise with Wilders' support for Israel: it's totally over the top. I find it sad that Israel and many Israelis see nothing wrong with support for their state coming from crackpots like Wilders or people like John Hagee...
Post a Comment
<< Home