How widely is this known to ordinary dutch folk? How do the dutch feel about anti-semitism? How fast amd how hard is the law likely to act in this case? Is any meaningful 'reform' of mosques and their operating guidelines gonna happen as a result?

/questions, questions and more questions....

Posted by: voletti at June 20, 2005 9:13 AM

European antisemitism has been flowing into Muslim countries for years. I guess the only thing changing is that now Islamic antisemitism is flowing into Europe.

Perhaps Amnesty International will condemn Israel for using the eyes of the sacrificial Palestinian. After all, Amnesty never wastes an opportunity to spread it's own form of antisemitism whenever possible.

Perhaps the BBC along with the Guardian will bring publicity to this issue as well. After all, both media outlets did their level best to spread the blood libel of the "Jenin Massacre". Seems to me that one fake blood libel story is as good as another ( perhaps the BBC and the Guardian may want to use the blood libel of Hugh of Lincoln since it involves one of their own).

Posted by: MJ at June 20, 2005 9:17 AM

"European antisemitism has been flowing into Muslim countries for years. I guess the only thing changing is that now Islamic antisemitism is flowing into Europe."

Don't be ridiculous.

Posted by: alex221166 at June 20, 2005 9:21 AM

alex221166

You might try learning something about the history of antisemitism or do you think the there is no such thing as European antisemitism? Bring something to the table beside your ignorance.

Posted by: MJ at June 20, 2005 9:31 AM

MJ,

Apologies for reacting but...

Really, the issue is that Europe is bending over so far backwards not to be anti-semitic that it is leaving the door open for the facist Islamic cult.

Without any doubt there is an anit-Israel attitude from the European elites and the left, but don't read that as anti-semite, even if I agree with you that the Left and Euro Elites have got it wrong with their attitude to Israel. Do not equate mis-guided criticism with racism.

The majority of the anti-semitic activities carried out in Europe are carried out by members of the so called religion of peace and not by Europeans as such.

And as for this film, I hope that the authorities do something about this film, though as anything to do with Islam, I won't hold my breath over it.

Please my American friends, stop insulting us Europeans with the racist bullshit, the vast majority of European people are not racist and abhor such things so let go of the Europhobia. ;-)

Posted by: Daffersd at June 20, 2005 9:49 AM

Daffersd-

No apology needed for reacting to my post...

So allow me the same opportunity to debate you. You write, "the issue is that Europe is bending over so far backwards not to be anti-semitic that it is leaving the door open for the fascist Islamic cult."

I see absolutely no evidence for this statement. In effect you are blaming Jews for opening "the door to the fascist Islamic cult". This is because, in your view, "Europe is bending over backwards not to be anti-semitic..."
Would you care to elaborate on how the mechanisms work which allow the rise of Islamic fascism in Europe coupled to Europe's bending over to fight anti-semitism? Conversely, are you suggesting that in order for Europe to close the door on Islamic fascism it's needs antisemitism?

Frankly, I see very little evidence that Europe, or, as you wish- the majority of Europeans- are prepared to do anything about the rise of antisemitism in their midst. It is as if a great weight has been lifted from the European body-politic...a weight which wouldn't allow open Jew-hatred a respectable hearing so soon after the murder of six million Jews. The weight is now gone, spurred on, no doubt, but the rise of Islamic antisemitism.

As for this particular film, I would not hold my breath that the Dutch authorities will do anything to stop it. That may be because, as you suggest, that the film has something, "to do with Islam." My reading is slightly different: the Dutch authorities will do nothing because the film promotes antisemitsm and as long as it's confined to Jew-hatred the majority of Europeans don't care or might even agree with the film's premise.

Posted by: MJ at June 20, 2005 10:46 AM

No non-Muslim European anti-semitism, you say? One need not look at the low-life skin-heads and neo-Nazis to find it. One can find it quite easily amonst the European elite:

Aristocratic anti-Semites at Hampton Court

By YEHUDA AVNER

The sheer splendor of Henry VIII's Great Hall at Hampton Court Palace, with its 16th-century Flemish tapestries and soaring hammer-beam ceiling, is an inspiration for prestigious entertaining on a prodigious scale.

Queen Elizabeth II habitually celebrates her official birthday there, a sparkling occasion which assembles ministers of the crown, peers of the realm, knighted dignitaries, church notables, civic leaders and foreign ambassadors. Insignia of high rank and ancient office are on dazzling display, and a courtier in a black cocked-hat, red livery and great silver chains, boisterously strikes the floor with a huge baton while announcing the entry of each personage at the top of his voice.

The royal banquet of the summer of 1988 was particularly noteworthy for the salacious gossip which was making the rounds of the Great Hall. champagne-fuelled guests were abuzz with the tittle-tattle triggered by the tabloids titillating that Britain's future king, Charles Prince of Wales, husband of the widely-adored Princess Diana, had taken a mistress. Her name was Camilla Parker Bowles, and she was a married woman!

As the evening got under way, the Archbishop of Canterbury was seen hurriedly disappearing with prime minister Margaret Thatcher into an adjoining chamber, where they were said to have engaged in an animated exchange on the royal succession.

This, at least, was the speculation of the person on my right, a baroness whose name I do not recall but whose appearance was unforgettable. She had cobweb-like yellowish hair, a long neck noosed in yards of pearls, a prominent Adam's apple, and was dressed in a fussy fire engine red. She had a face like a samovar.

"Charles has taken a feather out of Henry VIII's cap, I wager," she remarked in a tone ringing with reproach. "Did you know that after Henry married Anne Boleyn he still played hanky-panky with her sister, Mary – and their mother, too, right here in Hampton Court. Did you know that?"

I confessed that I didn't.

"And at the very same time he was also conducting an affair with a wench called Elizabeth Blount, also right here in Hampton Court. Did you know that?"

Again, I admitted that I didn't.

"And did you know that not only was she his mistress, she gave birth to his only son?"

Once more I acknowledged that I didn't.

The woman stared sharply at me through her pince-nez as though I was a nincompoop. Whereupon, she emitted a long audible sigh of incredulity, and hissed, "Do leopards change their spots? Can Charles the philanderer ever change his?" With that, she cast a sudden jaundiced eye at the white-gloved butler who was obsequiously placing a golden plate of kosher cuisine before me.

"Foreigners!" she mumbled under her breath.
"Bah!" and she tucked into her own dish.

Whether this was meant as a slur on my beliefs or a slight at my ignorance I did not have the time to fathom, for now the lady on my left – a Lady Carpenter, wife of the dean of Westminster Abbey – marked my serving and began pontificating about the virtues of religious traditions. She was a trim, middle-aged lady of pious appearance – no make-up, no jewelry, her silvery hair simply done, her dress unadorned.

The fellow next to her, a husky, soldierly type in his early 70s, with an aristocratic nose, glossy bald head, and piercing blue eyes, joined in to jovially declare, "By sheer chance, I partook of a kosher meal myself in New York last week."

"How interesting," gasped Lady Carpenter. She sounded quite spellbound at the thought.

"Oh yes, indeed. I was out with a Muslim chap I know, a Pakistani. And since we couldn't find a halal restaurant we ended up in a kosher one. Good chicken soup, I can tell you. Ha, ha!"

He spoke in a top drawer accent, and a crimson sash crossed his chest decorated with royal insignia and military honors. Proffering me his hand, he said, "My name is Howard, but people call me Norfolk."

I blushed at my gaucherie, for I had failed to recognize the Duke of Norfolk, Premier Earl of the English peerage and chief layman of the English Catholic Church.

"Dr. Inamullah Kahn," he warbled in his sonorous, la-di-da fashion – "that's the fellow I was with – is the secretary-general of the World Muslim Congress. And we'd just awarded him the Templeton Prize."

The Templeton Prize is one of the most munificent prizes in the world – a cool $1.5 million – and is awarded for innovative contributions to the harmonious coexistence of religion and science. I deduced that the duke was on its judge's panel.

"And do you know," he piped on, smiling in an unmirthful way so that his upper-echelon face contorted into a sort of sneer, "an influential New York lobby had the absolute effrontery to try and pressure us at the last minute to withdraw the prize."

"Really, Your Grace?" sighed Lady Carpenter. "How dreadful! But why, oh why would they want to do such a thing?" Her voice had trailed off into a whispery woe.

"Because, madam," answered the Duke with alacrity, "Dr. Inamullah Kahn is a friend and supporter of Yasser Arafat and his cause, that's why."

"And who is this lobby?" I asked, antlers rising.

"Oh, come, come, ambassador, you know as well as I do who the lobby is." His expression was prim, his lips a tight smile.

"No. Who?"

"The Jew press of New York, of course."

"The what?" I could not believe my ears.

"The Jew press of New York," he gamely repeated.

My heart was beating fast. "You're an anti-Semite, sir," I blurted out, totally beside myself.

"Am I? It never occurred to me," He seemed genuinely taken aback.

Alarmed presumably at my breathlessness, Lady Carpenter began to rub my back, cooing with unreserved, melodramatic emotion, "Ambassador, ambassador, please do not let the wounds of 2,000 years be reopened. Let me mollify them with the balm of Jerusalem."

And as she rubbed, the Duke of Norfolk repeated over and over again, "Nothing personal, old boy – nothing personal."

These theatrics were halted by the red-liveried toastmaster who, barking for silence, commanded everybody to rise for the Loyal Toast. Instantly, the merry tables of the Great Hall went mute, and everybody rose. Then, we all settled down to the speeches.

The orations done, guests moved into an adjacent grand parlor where brandy, liqueurs, coffee and cigars were proffered, and a string quintet played Bach.

Amid the hubbub I came face to face with the baroness, who was enjoying a tipple. She was standing under a Gainsborough, not far from the secretary of state for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, and the head of the Liberal Party, David Steel. They were engaged in vehement conversation.

By now a trifle inebriated, the baroness snarled, "Look at them – politicians! Talk, talk, talk!"

"Scotsmen do seem to have much to talk about," I bantered for want of nothing better to say.

A derisive expression spread across the baroness's beaky face, and with a jerk of her chin in Rifkind's direction, scoffed, "He's not a Scotsman. He's one of yours."

That was enough! Earlier, this insufferable woman had addressed me in an admixture of paternalism and hauteur. Now it was pure hauteur – anti-Semitic hauteur.

Irate, I retorted: "How can you say a man born in Edinburgh, raised in Edinburgh, educated in Edinburgh, represents a constituency in Edinburgh, and is the secretary of state for Scotland – is not a Scotsman?"

The baroness's lips twisted into a disdainful smile as she pointed in the direction of another Jew who was a member of prime minister Thatcher's cabinet – the secretary of state for trade and industry, Lord David Young. Cynically, she chortled, "Young's an Englishman as much as Rifkind's a Scotsman."

Aghast, I quickly gazed around the big room in search of Jewish members of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet.

"Look," I exclaimed challengingly, "There's Keith Joseph, secretary of state for education and science. And over there is Leon Brittan, the home secretary. And by the window is Nigel Lawson, the chancellor of the exchequer. And there's Michael Howard, minister of state for local government – in addition to Malcolm Rifkind and David Young. So what do you make of that?"

Her eyes were a vicious glint. She said nothing.

"So how come Mrs. Thatcher has so many Jews in her cabinet?" I kept on.

Smoothly, snootily, she answered, "Because Margaret Thatcher is most comfortable among the lower middle class," and off she traipsed, tipsy.
That night I learned that there are grand houses of the British aristocracy where one can be an anti-Semite without shame, and where one can be an anti-Semite without knowing it.

When Michael Howard fought an election as head of the British Conservative Party a few weeks ago, amid anti-Semitic slurs and undertones, I conjured up the memory of Hampton Court. One cannot be a Jew in British political life without learning a lot about anti-Semites. It is often a subtle, oblique, residual thing – a feeling that Jews are somehow not quite fully British.

And this is a reminder, surely, that anti-Semitism has proven to be the most durable of ideologies. It has reemerged to become a powerful force in world affairs.

Will Israel be more durable than anti-Semitism? Few things have been. Yet, ironically, anti-Semitism itself has kept many a Jew a Jew. And this goes for the Jewishness of the Jewish state, too.

The writer, a veteran diplomat, served as ambassador to the Court of St. James's. avner28@netvsion.net.il

Some things never change.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 20, 2005 10:47 AM

As far as I know, "eye transplants" are not yet medically possible. Only the cornea can be successfully transplanted, and deterioration of the corneas usually strikes those over 50, not children.

This sounds like another Islamic urban legend to me, which will be unfortunately repeated as "truth" by untold numbers of gullible Muslims.

Posted by: kafira at June 20, 2005 10:48 AM

I assume MJ means Little St Hugh the small boy whose murder in 1255 was attributed to the Jewish community in Lincoln, probably by the real murderer to cover his own guilt. And not St Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln who died in 1200 and was noted for protecting the Jewish communities of Lincoln, Northampton and Stamford, at some risk to himself.
I have not been to Lincoln Cathedral for some years. The last time I was there the story of Little St Hugh was used as a focus for prayer for all abused children, and all who had suffered anti semitism or racism generally.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 20, 2005 10:58 AM

Perhaps the word "antisemitism" ought to be replaced by the word "antisemitisms." The Qur'an and Hadith contain a great many passages directed at Jews, and few Muslims could avoid noting, in the Sira, just how often Muhammad deals mercilessly with the Jewish tribes -- from those prisoners of the Banu Qurayza who were beheaded by the hundreds, to the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, to the Jewish poet who was assassinated, and how much he resented their unwillingness to accept Islam, and jettison Judaism. But that is quite different from the variety that developed in Western Christendom.

In his book on "Semites and Anti-Semites" Bernard Lewis appears to believe that antisemitism in the Muslim world is an import from Europe. This is peculiar. Certainly the kind of material that European antisemites have battened on has been gratefully received in Egypt and other centers of Muslim antisemitism. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion used to be handed out to Westerners by assorted Saudi kings, until they were made to realize it was not comme il faut. In Egypt the Protocols are a perennial favorite among the literate, and recently Egyptian TV ran a series loosely based on those same Protocols.

Perhaps what one should say about the movie being shown in Holland is that antisemitism, East and West, now come together, that the pathology is dangerous for everyone, and anyone who exhibits such a pathological condition is to be regarded by Infidels, all Infidels, as a security risk -- given the virulence of the disease, and its obvious consequences.

Posted by: Hugh at June 20, 2005 11:00 AM

As for the film being shown at the Dutch mosques, it should be a shoo-in for the Pieter Menten Prize at the next Dutch Film Festival.

Posted by: Hugh at June 20, 2005 11:03 AM

Is anyone surprised by this vile film being shown in the mosques of Allah?

Posted by: dennisw at June 20, 2005 11:12 AM

I for one am no fan of Western Europe. I don't like their surrender to multiculturalism, moral relativism, snobbish disdain for Christianity, knee-jerk anti-Americanism. Even so, I do not believe that their lackadaisical attitude towards Muslim persecution of Jews in Europe has much to do with anti-Semitism on their part. It's just the apathy of navel contemplators. America is not free of this Western malaise. It only has less of it than Europe, and only because of 9/11, was this growing trend temporarily reversed in America. Hence, we must never forget.

As for the obscene propaganda film, any decent journalist would be knocking on the door of the mosque, cameras rolling, to make inquiries about their showing of the film.

"Iman Mahmood, why are you showing this film in your mosque? Do you really believe the content of this film? Where did you get it?"

Even noncompliance on the part of the iman is news. Is ANYONE going to pursue this?

If you think this is only meant as an indictment of the European media, think again. The discovery of hate literature in Saudi-supported mosques across America by Freedom House got only yawns from major newspapers. The fact that not a single journalist in America started knocking on doors (after all, the names of the offending mosques were clearly listed) says a lot about our media too. Backbones are not a valued commodity in Western journalism.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev at June 20, 2005 11:16 AM

MJ, After the Holocaust many Europeans said never again, therefore they have developed a multi-culturism type approach to try to prevent anti-semitism developing in its population by developing a respect for other cultures, I think that this approach is noble in its intentions.

Arabs, Jews and others are defined as Semitic in racial terms.

Europeans don't know how to deal with Islam as they do not want to be seen to be anti-Semitic.

No I do not blame the Jewish people for this, I blame Hitler and his ilk.

I do not think that Europe should ever be or needs to be racist, however I believe that Europe should deal with the Islamic ideology directly, it can be donw but certain steps are needed, including being open about what Islam really is.

In my experience I do not see any anti-Jewish racism by all the friends and contacts I have, they generally don't like Islam and have a sort of plucky respect for Israel.

The weight of those 6 million people has not gone and it should never go.

My feeling is that nothing will be done about this film as European politicians are really scared of civil disorder from the Muslim minority and do not want to offend them in case it pushes them to join the jihad.

As for that story about Hampdon Court can we expect anything else from the thick upper class that lead Britain to ruin up until Maggie Thatcher revistalized the country, this people mean nothing and are nothing in the modern world apart from their titles and their land.

I agree that we do not do enough, it seems the only people with money to take legal action are those backed by the petro-dollars of Saudi Arabia, I certainly do not have the money to take this Mosque to court for anti-semitism, but oh would I love to do it...

Posted by: Daffersd at June 20, 2005 11:23 AM

"I certainly do not have the money to take this Mosque to court for anti-semitism, but oh would I love to do it..."

I understand the temptation, but legislation against "anti-semitism" is a bad idea. It opens a can of worms that might give political correctness sweeping powers. Ironically, it might even result in legal restrictions against the criticism of Islam.

About a year ago, some commentators on JW floated the idea of a letter to congress making Islam "illegal." It was one of the most harebrained ideas I ever saw. Such a precedent could, in the long run, have dire consequences againt fundamentalist Baptists and Orthodox Jews (some of our best allies against postmodernism and radical Islam).

Publicity is the answer. Jerry Falwell's offensive comments following 9/11 (implying that God was punishing New York etc...) was widely publicized. Where were the journalists covering what was going on at our mosques?

Westerners are for the most part a decent lot. If they really knew more deeply and more often what is really going on at their mosques (like they know the televangelists), groups like CAIR would be treated like the social lepers they are.

They need not take place in our government, but in our media.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev at June 20, 2005 12:05 PM

"I certainly do not have the money to take this Mosque to court for anti-semitism, but oh would I love to do it..."

I understand the temptation, but legislation against "anti-semitism" is a bad idea. It opens a can of worms that might give political correctness sweeping powers. Ironically, it might even result in legal restrictions against the criticism of Islam.

About a year ago, some commentators on JW floated the idea of a letter to congress making Islam "illegal." It was one of the most harebrained ideas I ever saw. Such a precedent could, in the long run, have dire consequences againt fundamentalist Baptists and Orthodox Jews (some of our best allies against postmodernism and radical Islam).

Publicity is the answer. Jerry Falwell's offensive comments following 9/11 (implying that God was punishing New York etc...) was widely publicized. Where were the journalists covering what was going on at our mosques?

Westerners are for the most part a decent lot. If they really knew more deeply and more often what is really going on at their mosques (like they know the televangelists), groups like CAIR would be treated like the social lepers they are.

The revolution need not take place in our government but in our media.

Posted by: Andrei Rublev at June 20, 2005 12:06 PM

Aren't the Turks supposed to be so secular, rational and friends of Israel? Guess a Muslim is a Muslim no matter what kind of cosmetic changes. Bet there is a deafening outcry of denunciations from more reasonable Muslim clerics, NOT!

Posted by: Dumbo at June 20, 2005 12:07 PM

Islamic anti-Semitism and European anti-Semitism interact. The EU surpressed a report on anti-Semitic attacks when it concluded that most of these attacks came from Muslims. Multi-culturalism and Muslims' exploitation of victim status give left wing European anti-Semites an excuse to vent their own Jew hatred. They can claim to be speaking up on behalf of the poor Palestinians.

I think, sadly that even if Islam were to disappear off the face of the earth (inshallah), anti-Semitism would be with us in one form or another. It seems to adapt - was it our Chief Rabbi who called it 'a virus that mutates'?

Posted by: Interested at June 20, 2005 12:10 PM

Honestly, the people that can take such trash about stealing eyes seriously are utter Neanderthals, or Muslims!

Posted by: Dumbo at June 20, 2005 12:11 PM

One for MJ:

http://tinyurl.com/aj62f

Posted by: Effractor at June 20, 2005 12:26 PM

Passing hate crime laws that are effective may pose challenges to the legislators and those charged drafting those laws, but so far as I am aware, the various Muslim lobbies in Canada have not attempted to go after anyone with the law under which Ernst Zundel was successfully prosecuted.

Aside from casting incredible doubt on the intellect of the people who produced and disseminated "Zahra's Blue Eyes", and the viewers who would believe such obvious BS, I have to wonder why they need to resort to such incredible fiction to validate their outrage at Israel and the Jews. Could it be that they realize at some level their pet grievance (Israel/Palestine) has less substance to it than too many people who know nothing of Middle Eastern history are willing to believe?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 20, 2005 12:42 PM

Isn't the European left's anti-Zionism just thinly veiled anti-Semitism? Leftist look like hypocrits when they condemn almost everything Isreal does while condoning even most heinous acts of the Palestinians.

Posted by: Roxane at June 20, 2005 12:54 PM

European intellectual anti-semitism is centuries old and is as stubborn as any idology to eradicate from gobal consciousness.

An essay by George Orwell http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib will show how the "I'm not anti-semitic, but..." attitude is a constant feature of western life. George Orwell, also is at a loss to explain this and believes that nationalism however may play a big part. My feeling is that the usual human mistrust of those not of 'our' tribe has a not inconsiderable part to play in generating anti-semitic pathologies.

I occasionally hear anti-semitic innuendos as well as meet people who go out of their way to show their non-antisemitism by mentioning how they love one particular jewish thing. (Kind of like boasting about having black friends)

Either way, Jews are considered different, of doubtful loyalty and therefore untrusted by many otherwise intelligent people. This is despite the fact that there is no evil which they have ever done in their history which has come even close to matching the violence carried out against them.

Rationalism plays very little part in peoples' thinking processes anyway and humans will always look around to find someone to blame.

Muslims are actually instructed by their god to hate jews. What excuse do non muslims have?

http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/

Posted by: Sebastien at June 20, 2005 12:57 PM

Didn't the audience just laugh?

Don't they get the joke?

(Not just that 'eye transplants' are a preposterously non-existent item in the current medical 'toolkit'.)

No. The real HUMOR:

-what Jew would want a substandard article?

Aren't they notoriously picky, picky, picky? So, clearly, the evil Zionists would be going for a top-of-the-line product.

A Mercedes of eyeballs, so to speak.

Thus, they would really be looking [sic] for German eyeballs.

High-end Aryan models.

20/20 aqueous humors.

NOW THAT WOULD BE A MOVIE!

Possible Deutsche title:

"Auge auf der Kugel"

OR:

"Eye on the Ball"

Posted by: BigSleep at June 20, 2005 1:50 PM

We should always be careful about broad brush characteriazations. I recently read in the Canadian Jewish News of young German Socialists marching in support of Israel.

Re the "we're only anti-Zionist, not anti-Semetic" plaint, Dershowitz, following Canada's Minister of Justice, Irwin Cottler, says you can smell the anti-Semites by whether they only condemn Israel for "human rights" violations and ignore or make excuses for the rest of the world. You can get nut-bars like Sue Blackwell of the AUT wearing a dress made of Palestinian flags and festooning her house with it and it's obvious you are dealing with someone who is obsessed and not playing with a full deck.

Far more incidious are the more numerous "leftists" who only concern themselves about Israel's human rights violations against the Palestinians, without a scrap of context (state of war), and without a whimper about the much grosser HR violations committed by the PA -- against its own people, that you should recognize that you are dealing with a bigot, just one who isn't as crude as the garden variety bigot.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at June 20, 2005 2:17 PM

From what I've read, the Dutch are ready for nothing less than a Muslim Exclusion Act, i.e., prohibiting immigrants from Muslims nations from settling in The Netherlands. Considering that the Dutch are perhaps the most tolerant people on Earth, this does say something.

Here in the US, Muslims are a very small minority (under 4%, as I recall). For Europe, this is more than 10%, and probably more when you count all the illegals. Part of the problem for Europe, it seems, is that they are afraid of this growing population, but are unwilling to give up this source of cheap labor (someone has to scrub the public toilets, after all).

The Europeans should take a leaf from the Muslim Gulf states: they kicked out the Palestinians after Gulf War I, and imported Indonesians.

Posted by: Loxias at June 20, 2005 2:31 PM

What f***ing one-way attitudes they have.They don't want us to see "The siege" or "24" or that movie starring Kury Russell battling islamic highjackers. But they sure want to watch movies that are disturbing to westerners.

Posted by: Ummagumma at June 20, 2005 2:55 PM

Oooops! Sp."Kury Russell"= Kurt Russell

Posted by: Ummagumma at June 20, 2005 3:57 PM

"Pieter Menten prize". That's a very good one. Since the documentary filmfestival Amsterdam IDFA prides itself with the Joris Ivens Price. Our legendary filmmaker who made propagandafilms for Mao Tse Tung with forced labourers as stand ins.

Posted by: wally klomp at June 20, 2005 4:23 PM

To see the fragments of these film in the dutch newsmagazine item
nova:
http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?cfid=37536348&cftoken=18817549&ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3515

Posted by: wally klomp at June 20, 2005 4:34 PM

These days almost anything 'bad' coming out of Holland seems to have some kind of Muslim connection.

The name Robin van Persie will mean little to most Americans; he is a footballer who plys his trade in the English Premiership. He has recently been arrested after allegations of rape were made against him in his home city of Rotterdam.

Van Persie grew up in a mainly Moroccan neighbourhood, and by all accounts was a bit of tearaway. However, he was thought to have 'settled down' with his Moroccan wife, and recently converted to the religion of peace.

Which makes the rape allegation against him all the more shocking, no?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/sport/football/articles/19296658

Posted by: Effractor at June 20, 2005 6:09 PM

Dumbo:

The Turks are not secular; their government is. This is a very important distinction.

Turks are virtually all Muslim - the religion is alive and strong in Turkey. Ataturk, in his attempts at modernization, brought in measures to ensure that the government would be secular - e.g. religious symbols such as headscarfs, are banned in schools and government offices; no Islamists were to be appointed to important positions, etc. He gave the military powers to ensure that this secularization is preserved. Hence the military's "interrruption of democracy" on several occasions when Islamists seemed to be gaining power.

But have no doubt: Turkey is overwhelmingly Moslem - there are mosques virtually everywhere; Moslem holidays are observed nationwide. There is a strong anti-American feeling in the country as well as some disturbing signs of a misguided nationalism and anti-Semitism (e.g., the popularity of Hitler's Mein Kampf).

Posted by: Jen at June 20, 2005 6:46 PM

I am deeply disappointed by the posts I read on this thread from Daffersd. This is the last site I ever expected to see an "anti-Zionism isn't anti-Semitism" apologist, but, sure enough, here he is. I am simply floored that there are still people out there who are in denial about the reality of deeply rooted and widespread progressive anti-Semitism.

Unbelievable.

Since I don't honestly think he is aware of what he's saying, I'll patiently dissect his misguided assertions systematically.

Post of naiivete from Daffersd:

[Really, the issue is that Europe is bending over so far backwards not to be anti-semitic that it is leaving the door open for the facist Islamic cult. Without any doubt there is an anit-Israel attitude from the European elites and the left, but don't read that as anti-semite, even if I agree with you that the Left and Euro Elites have got it wrong with their attitude to Israel. Do not equate mis-guided criticism with racism.]

Ok, let's examine the preposterous idea that Islam is raging in Europe because Euros are so hyper sensitive to not being anti-Semitic that they are pacifying moslem terrorists.

The real motivation for Euro moslem appeasent is that Euros are Evangelically prostelatizing progressive socialist doctrine throughout the world, and have utopian dreams of someday creating a secular egalitarian planet, devoid of God, nationality, race, gender difference, and traditional morality.

The reason, therefore, Euros are so smitten with moslems is they believe they're the last, biggest unwashed population utterly vulnerable to being liberalized in the purest Euro mold. There is this romantic notion that once moslems are exposed to liberalism they'll surely abandon islam and convert to progressive socialism just like Europeans did with Christianity over the past 200 years.

Thus, the Evangelical secularist plan is eventually spreading leftist ideology to every corner of the globe, and converting moslems are the number one ticket to realizing worldwide liberal domination.

This is where the Jews come in. Jews are the natural enemy of the left and remains the fly in the ointment to this very day. The Jew cannot be assimilated fully enough to be accepted as true leftists on any level.

Why? First of all, the Jew's "choseness". Being somehow different as a race of people is not something that liberals can tolerate. Jews must be willing to completely reject any elitest
"choseness" in order to be considered for the egalitarian club. Even such rejection is unlikely to be entirely trusted, as others will always doubt the Jew's willingness to totally assimilate and permanently reject all uniqueness claims. A Jew will never be looked at as an equal partner in secular, egalitarian circles no matter how liberal he may be.

Second, religion. Jews cannot be permitted to maintain laws of Koshrut or any other distinct religious practice and still be a welcomed member of utopian society. Jewish laws are very antithetical to assimilation and liberalism, and therefore all ties to Judaism must be completely severed. Even once that is done, however, the thought that Jews will remain closet traditionalists makes them less trusted by progressives.

Third, Nationalists. Jews claim to the Land of Israel is an abomination to liberals. The idea that a people would be Biblically commanded to settle a land is against everything the Left believes in. That Israel exists today is the embodiment of why Jews can never be true progressives, even if the Jews themselves are secular socialists.

The Jew is tied to the Land of Israel religiously (an afront to leftists), racially (an affront to leftists), and nationally (an affront to liberals).

In other words, the Jew will always be mistrusted by the left as being loyal to something other than the collective assimilated entity created by the Euro elite. The Jew is an outsider, a person born different who can never be intigrated enough to become part of the whole without an asterisk.

Try as he may, the Jew can never run from his identity enough to gain full secular acceptance, nor can remaining true to his Jewish world placate the scorn and derision of the socialist evangelical.

In other words, the Jew will never be embraced by the secular liberals, either by holding true to his Torah, or abandoning his traditions for a secular dream. The Jew is merely in the way of the messianic leftist, now and for always his pest and his scapegoat.

Posted by: Madzionist at June 21, 2005 2:22 AM

Madzionist,

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make in the first paragraph, I can't work out that statement at all...

But I think you raise an interesting point in regards to the Left. Who as far as I can work out want to commit suicide when it comes to Islam, perhaps as you say they see Muslims as another chance to gain a large power base, then they are even bigger fools.

As for the Left in Europe, their socialist dream is slowly but inevitably unravelling under the strains of globalization and market forces and there is not a single thing they can do about it, they either accept the change or stagnate.

I basically want European governments to deal with Islam as an aggresive and unpleasent ideology which is up there with Communism and National Socialism, is that too much to ask for? Anyway the signs are there that at last action is being taken.

People like me will continue to support Israel and the Jewish people no matter what, as far as I am concerned Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people not the Palestinians and the Jewish people are the victims.

You say a Jewish person is an outsider, how come, they accept the laws of the country in which they live and they add so much to the countries in terms of music, culture and science.

Anyway its been nice to exchange views, even if I can not quite see where you are coming from.

Posted by: Daffersd at June 21, 2005 3:19 AM

More than a century ago, when real men wore pigtails and apple carts were being upset by busybody missionaries (many of whom were female) who went around telling Chinese women to let their duaghters' feet develop naturally, it was commonly "known" in China that medical missionaries took the eyes of orphaned children to make medicines. This was a staple of the Boxer rebellion and, with variations, was used even by the Communist regime during the Korean War and later.

Somehow, mentioning the use of eyes gets 'em every time.

Re high-class anti-Semtism:

A wag once wrote:

How odd/Of God/To choose/The Jews. But odder still/Are those who choose/The Jewish God/Yet hate the Jews.

I fear that a "secularized" Europe that refuses to call itself "Christian" can no longer be taunted with such doggerel.

Posted by: Kepha at June 21, 2005 4:16 AM

More than a century ago, when real men wore pigtails and apple carts were being upset by busybody missionaries (many of whom were female) who went around telling Chinese women to let their duaghters' feet develop naturally, it was commonly "known" in China that medical missionaries took the eyes of orphaned children to make medicines. This was a staple of the Boxer rebellion and, with variations, was used even by the Communist regime during the Korean War and later.

Somehow, mentioning the use of eyes gets 'em every time.

Re high-class anti-Semtism:

A wag once wrote:

How odd/Of God/To choose/The Jews. But odder still/Are those who choose/The Jewish God/Yet hate the Jews.

I fear that a "secularized" Europe that refuses to call itself "Christian" can no longer be taunted with such doggerel.

Posted by: Kepha at June 21, 2005 4:17 AM

More than a century ago, when real men wore pigtails and apple carts were being upset by busybody missionaries (many of whom were female) who went around telling Chinese women to let their duaghters' feet develop naturally, it was commonly "known" in China that medical missionaries took the eyes of orphaned children to make medicines. This was a staple of the Boxer rebellion and, with variations, was used even by the Communist regime during the Korean War and later.

Somehow, mentioning the use of eyes gets 'em every time.

Re high-class anti-Semtism:

A wag once wrote:

How odd/Of God/To choose/The Jews. But odder still/Are those who choose/The Jewish God/Yet hate the Jews.

I fear that a "secularized" Europe that refuses to call itself "Christian" can no longer be taunted with such doggerel.

Posted by: Kepha at June 21, 2005 4:17 AM

Sorry for the multiples!

BTW, the Israeli Ambassador's piece reminded me once of how, when I was in Bangkok, and dickered down the price of a taxi, another Western neighbor born in a country with well-developed class consciousness remarked on my lack of any sense of well-off foreigner's noblesse oblige by calling me a "Scottish Jew" for tyring to save myself some baht.

As a Bible-reading Presbyterian, I honestly felt flattered--although I regret to say my neighbor was indulging in some unpleasant stereotyping that has been applied to many dispersed tribes who have historically lived by commerce rather than by subsistence agriculture and bullying a peasantry into accepting "protection" offered by an armed "nobility".

Posted by: Kepha at June 21, 2005 4:29 AM

Kepha,

Nice posts :-)

Posted by: Daffersd at June 21, 2005 5:06 AM

Loxias, can you point me in the direction of the Muslim Exclusion Act you mentioned, is this in Dutch or English?

Posted by: Daffersd at June 21, 2005 6:20 AM

Thanks for posting it Robert Spencer :)

-------------------------------------------------
How widely is this known to ordinary dutch folk? How do the dutch feel about anti-semitism? How fast amd how hard is the law likely to act in this case? Is any meaningful 'reform' of mosques and their operating guidelines gonna happen as a result?

/questions, questions and more questions....

Posted by: voletti at June 20, 2005 09:13 AM
-------------------------------------------------

Well it was shown on tv, so its not under covers.

Well the left is more and more looking the other way when muslims are being anti-Semitism, when nazi's do it they call up every left nut they know and they beat the guy up (happened allot), there big hypocrites.

the problem is this, too many left are protecting the islam, even when its a muslim who says all kafirs must die, but i see more and more people are waking up, a year ago i saw a article where it says that 60% of the Dutch want the muslims gone once and for all.

Posted by: Morghodius at June 21, 2005 2:16 PM