By now we have all heard about Peter Hoekstra, the new American ambassador to the Netherlands, who was repeatedly questioned by Dutch journalists on January 10 about a statement he had made in 2015: “There are cars being burned. There are politicians that are being burned,” he said then, at a conference hosted by a conservative group. “And yes, there are no-go zones in the Netherlands.”
He was immediately attacked for these remarks, and when asked — repeatedly — to name a no-go zone in the Netherlands, failed to offer any answer.
When the journalists began to ask Hoekstra about his remark that “politicians are being burned,” he again failed to answer.
At that point, Roel Geeraedts, one of the journalists present, asked Hoekstra about a John Adams quote — Adams was America’s first ambassador to Holland — that was mounted over a fireplace right behind the new ambassador.
“Hoekstra said he had read the quote, which expresses Adams’s hope that only ‘honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.’”
“If you’re truly an honest and wise man, could you please take back the remark about burned politicians or name the politician that was burned in the Netherlands?” Geeraedts asked.
“An uncomfortable silence followed the question.”
Several more times other journalists repeated the question.
Still no answer was forthcoming.
“Thank you,” Hoekstra said, and the meeting ended.
It had been a disastrous performance, no doubt.
Hoekstra has since apologized.
“On Friday [January 12] Mr. Hoekstra finally admitted to Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf that he had made the remarks, to a right wing gathering in the US, and said he was “shocked” by them.
“That was a wrong statement. That was just wrong,” Mr Hoekstra said, adding that “clearly that was an inaccurate statement.” [He was speaking about his “no-go zones” remarks.]
“That one shocked me personally … because while you know there have been other issues in other countries in Europe, you know that has never been the circumstances here,” he said.
“I mixed up countries. I was wrong. I can’t recall how that could happen. I know: I was wrong,”
But his apology was not right, either, as it focused on his “no-go zone” comment, for which there is some support, and not on the statement about the “burning” of politicians, for which there is none. Not everything Hoekstra said could be dismissed out of hand, although — piling confusion on confusion — a chastened Hoekstra appeared all too willing to do so.
Hoekstra had originally mentioned the “burning of cars” by Muslim vandals. No one had asked him about that, possibly because those journalists knew full well that after France and Sweden, the Netherlands has the highest number of car-burnings by Muslims.
As for “No-Go zones” in the Netherlands, Hoekstra has been unable to identify them by name, but that does not mean they do not exist, as he now says. Despite his current claim, there is evidence that such zones exist in the Netherlands, though not nearly as widespread as in France and Sweden and Germany. Apparently the Dutch government agrees with what Hoekstra originally said, and not with the dismissive journalists, nor with his subsequent abject apology, for earlier this year it released a list of 40 “no-go” zones, mostly Islamic.
The Kolenkit area in Amsterdam is the number one Muslim “problem district” in the country. The next three districts are in Rotterdam – Pendrecht, het Oude Noorden and Bloemhof. The Ondiep district in Utrecht is in the fifth position, followed by Rivierenwijk (Deventer), Spangen (Rotterdam), Oude Westen (Rotterdam), Heechterp/ Schieringen (Leeuwarden) and Noord-Oost (Maastricht).
These are places where at least some of the following can be found: riots on a regular basis, extremely high crime rates, including street robberies, sexual assaults, attacks on businesses owned by non-Muslims, places where women feel it dangerous to walk alone, Jews and Christians may feel the need to hide their crosses or kippas, homosexuals may be attacked, DHL van drivers are reluctant to enter, vandalism of all kinds is rampant, including shop windows broken, trash cans overturned, the burning of cars for “fun,” especially on national holidays, firemen find they need police protection, and the police themselves are not welcomed, but treated as an occupying force.
It is too bad that Ambassador Hoekstra, during his encounter with the journalists, did not have at hand that Dutch government list of problem neighborhoods, and it’s too bad, in his subsequent apology, that he so sweepingly dismissed the possibility of any no-go zones in the Netherlands. Perhaps he could issue a more detailed and considered report. He might refer to that Dutch government list, but also raise the issue of when what is called a “problem” neighborhood become a no-go zone. Who decides what is a “no-go” neighborhood? The government, which in so many countries, including the Netherlands, appears to have a stake in minimizing fears of Muslims, and in under-reporting Muslim crime and hostility to non-Muslims? Or should we rely on reports by women, Jews, Christians, homosexuals, and others who have been made fearful? As part of his apology, Hoekstra could have said that he had wrongly conflated several European countries with no-go zones, instead of keeping them separate in his mind, and thus had confused the Netherlands with France, with Germany, and Sweden. which, he can add, “all of which have no-go zones.”
He ought to repeat that there needs to be a discussion over just how much mayhem, rioting, crime, attacks on non-Muslims, hostility to the police or firemen, is required for any locale to be considered a “no-go” zone. “Surely no one can object,” he can disingenuously continue, “to having such a discussion.” And whatever else it does, such a public discussion will force even the pollyannas to admit that there is mayhem, rioting, increased crime, and every kind of attack on, or intimidation of, non-Muslims, in Muslim neighborhoods — and that public admission is itself of value.
As to his original remark made about the ‘‘burning” of politicians, Hoekstra should certainly have expressed his regrets, and then, instead of that sweeping mea maxima culpa he provided, he should have offered an explanation for his mistake. He could have explained that when he made his original comments, he had had in mind the murders of the politician Pim Fortuyn, and the political activist Theo van Gogh, for being “anti-Muslim,” that he had retained the image of the Jordanian pilot burned alive by ISIS earlier that same year (2015), and had gotten things confused, for which he apologizes. He could have corrected his statement thus: “Political figures in the Netherlands have been threatened, and some have been murdered, for being outspoken in their criticism of Islam. I wanted to express my anguish at this but having been struck earlier that year [2015] by the burning to death of Captain Muath Al-Kasasbeh, I misattributed their deaths to ‘burning,’ which was, of course, both incorrect and indefensible, and for that I am sorry.”
That makes sense. For surely the most important part of Hoekstra’s remark was not how those political figures were murdered, but that they were murdered at all for merely expressing their views on Islam.
To sum up so far: yes, in the Netherlands each year there are about two thousand cars burned by Muslims, the most in Europe after France and Sweden; yes, there are places in the Netherlands, according to a report of the Dutch government itself, that could be considered No-Go Zones; no, there have been no political figures in the Netherlands who were “burned” to death, but several who were murdered for their criticism of Islam — and surely that is what matters most.
That is what Hoekstra’s apology should have included.
Finally, he can refer to that lapidary statement by John Adams, that was pointed out to Ambassador Hoekstra by one of the Dutch reporters, which was clearly meant to serve as a reproach, the wish that “honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.”
Hoekstra might have used that as justification for ending his own “apology” thus:
“I was grateful to have my attention directed by Mr. Roel Geeraedts to the quote from John Adams carved over the fireplace in the American embassy. Not everyone is aware that his son, John Quincy Adams, had an even more extensive connection to the Netherlands. He accompanied his father in diplomatic missions to the Hague between 1780 and 1782. He even studied at Leiden University. And he served as the U.S.Minister to the Netherlands from 1793 to 1796, having been appointed by George Washington. So John Quincy Adams had a close connection to the Netherlands. Deeply knowledgeable in history, he is best known for what he did, long after he was president, in the Amistad case. A firm abolitionist, Adams successfully argued in 1841 before the Supreme Court for freeing the black slaves who had killed the captain of the Amistad, the slave ship on which they were being transported, and then had tried, but failed, to have it set sail for Africa. It was a great victory by ‘Old Man Eloquent’ for the anti-slavery movement. All his life John Quincy Adams was a stout defender of liberty and human rights, an early advocate for abolitionism, an enemy of every kind of oppression. He was also our most learned president; he knew the 1,200-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. The horror at injustice and oppression that he felt for the slaves in the Amistad case can be seen, too, in his “Essay on Turks,” which includes his studied judgment of Islam. Some may, in this squeamish age, find that essay shocking in its forthrightness, and would no doubt wish to prevent his words from becoming known, would even block them if they could. Others, however, may find his views salutary and bracing.
“Here is an excerpt, so that you may judge for yourselves:
“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab [i.e., Mohammed] of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion.”
“He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.” [capitals in original].
“Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus…”
“The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.”
Hoekstra could have concluded thus:
“Yes, I know people seldom express their views in such strong terms anymore. But was John Quincy Adams, the celebrated defender of black slaves, wrong in his description of Islam? Did he grasp its essence, or was he wide of the mark? That, surely, needs to be discussed, and not just here in the Netherlands, but all over the Western world.”
“Thank you.”
____________________________________
A final suggestion:
There is one person, an American citizen, an articulate defender of the United States, fluent in Dutch as well as English, who might have been appointed as the American ambassador to The Netherlands, and who can still be appointed, should Ambassador Hoekstra be relieved of his duties. That person is Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
[1] ==QUOTE== “Surely no one can object,” [Ambassador Hoekstra] can disingenuously continue, “to having such a discussion [of what constitutes a no-go zone].” ==UNQUOTE==
Why would such a statement be disingenuous [= insincere]?
[2] Is Ambassador Peter Hoekstra of Dutch descent? His surname is superficially similar to that of the Dutch computer scientist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_W._Dijkstra .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Hoekstra provides the answer:
“Peter Hoekstra (/ˈhʊkstrə/; born October 30, 1953) is a Dutch American politician who served as the U.S. Representative for Michigan’s 2nd congressional district from 1993 to 2011 and as United States Ambassador to the Netherlands beginning in 2018. He is a member of the Republican Party. Born in Groningen, Netherlands, Hoekstra immigrated to the United States as a child with his parents.”
Hugh Fitzgerald says
He would be deliberately, with malice aforethought, luring the apologists for Islam into a discussion where they will have to publicly recognize what goes on in these Muslim neighborhoods, even as they deny that this is enough to make it a “no-go” zone. That’s why I used the adverb “disingenuously.”
gravenimage says
Exactly, Hugh.
StellaSaidSo says
Ambassador Hoekstra could have avoided embarrassment had he been better prepared for his encounter with a hostile Leftist Dutch media. He should have expected to be challenged on his 2015 remarks, and done his homework accordingly. The govt report on NO GO zones in the Netherlands was compiled several years ago, and Hoekstra should have been familiar with its contents.
Hoekstra’s apology for his use of the term ‘burning’ in relation to politicians need not have been as elaborate as Hugh suggests. He could have said that he was using the term metaphorically rather than literally, to include not only the murdered Pim Fortuyn but also those politicians who have been vilified or threatened as a result of their political opinions. He could have turned the situation to his advantage by remarking on the importance of free speech in a modern democracy.
On the basis of this episode, Hoekstra appears to be a poor choice for the position, but with a steady supply of good advice and information he might yet recover, and even emerge the victor next time he encounters Mr Geeraedts.
mortimer says
Agree. Hoekstra was poorly prepared and his staff were at fault for not preparing him. They should do so in future.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali would probably not accept the position of ambassador to the Netherlands, but such an appointment would draw attention to the fact that the Netherlands has a HUGE jihad problem and a HUGE ISLAMIC APARTHEID problem.
StellaSaidSo says
Ayaan would be an excellent choice, but she has a young child and a husband who is a Professor at Stanford (by coincidence, he is pictured in Robert’s thread about speakers at Stanford) and I doubt that they have any plans in the near future to leave the US. Besides, Ayaan is not liked by the leftist media in the Netherlands, because she does not fit their stereotype of the oppressed and downtrodden Muslim refugee.
Vic says
I agree, Mortimer. His staff should have prepared him better. Not just for the interview with known leftist media but also with the release of his response/statement/apology. Poorly done.
The support staff at the embassies is normally composed of the DoS appointees (Chief of Mission, Dep Chief of Mission, Political/Economic Sr. advisor, Ag-Trade-Labor Advisor, Justice/Rule of Law, Healthcare, Environment, etc.) that move around to different posts every few years (4-6) often changing during new administrations. Those appointees (mostly USAID direct hires who are field people) who stay in place for a number of years (6-10) acquiring a degree of expertise in the political/economic/social issues of the country and the region. Additionally, there is the native staff that usually stays for their whole career in their positions and who work in tandem with them. So there is staff with a good understanding of what is happening moment to moment in any country. They know who is who and what is what. Yes, Hoekstra and his staff should have known better and should have prepared better. Poorly done.
And frankly, it makes me wonder why this happened. It’s as if Hoekstra was thrown to the wolves. Was that on purpose? To make Trump and his administration look like ignorant fools who shoot their mouths without any evidence? Was it because his staff is incompetent? I tend to think the former reason rather than the latter.
Laurence Jarvik says
If Hoekstra was sabotaged, heads should roll ASAP. I was on a panel with then-Congressman Hoekstra at Heritage some 20+ years ago and he’s not stupid…he’s got to take a page from President Trump’s TV show and just say to his PAO: “You’re fired!” I think he could even hire Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Embassy as a specialist consultant under current rules, and let her deal with the Dutch media for the US government…
Guy Forester says
This makes me wonder who he has for a supporting staff. If these are a bunch of holdovers from previous administrations opposed to DHT, then Hoekstra was set up to fail.
rbla says
Hoekstra is a good guy but he expressed some truths a bit carelessly. This is similar to the recent media/ Dem brouhaha about the President’s remarks. Trump’s comments were absolutely true but he forgot who the participants at the meeting were. And sure enough the tattletales were quick to use those remarks –“Teacher, Donald said a dirty word while you were out of the room.”
Sam says
It does not matter who, why and what is said or not. Liberal media will protect their beloved friend Islam and other ideas against America and Israel as they see us as the enemy.
The fight against lefties will be won by force not by dialogue. It is too late to un brainwash billions of people in our lifetime. Sorry, but I do not see it any other way especially in Europe.
Civil war may not even happen in Europe. They may submit to Islam and live under sharia for another thousand years.
eduardo odraude says
It could certainly happen that the Muslim population in Europe keeps growing while the rest of the population keeps shrinking. In the next few decades, a dynamic could thus emerge where non-Muslims start to do two things: leave Europe, or convert to Islam, the two relatively simple paths for non-Muslims seeking to avoid being subjected to the discrimination, abuse, violence, and authoritarianism coming from dominant Muslim populations. Wasn’t Lebanon majority-Christian until a few decades ago?
John Marks says
You would think that someone who is being screened for such a position would be better able to articulate a response even without the specific details. And the fact that “Journalists” were the inquisitors, that they know that what he said was true (with the exception of burning politicians). The Government even provides a list.
eduardo odraude says
Great article. And great idea to appoint Hirsi Ali as ambassador to the Netherlands.
Laurence Jarvik says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a good suggestion–for Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights at the US State Department! Her Senate confirmation hearings alone would make it all worthwhile…
Klaas says
Most of this is rubbish. The Dutch government report (of about 10 years ago) talked about 40 zones which are socially problematic, with unemployment, higher crime rates, drugs, etc. Such zones exist in any city. They are much worse in the US, and even worse in South America, where there is almost no islam. Since muslims tend to be poorer, one tends to see more muslims in such zones, and you might not feel happy walking there, especially if you look Jewish. But calling them no-go zones and blaming this on islam is ridiculous.
The same with the car burning. Yes, there is an epidemic of cars set on fire here, and perhaps Turkish and Moroccan immigrants are over-represented among the culprits. And yes, if they are, it is going to very hard to find about that from the Dutch media, who will suppress such information. But even then, calling this islamic is ridiculous. Show me then Quran verse on car burning! And I do not even have to mention “burned politicians…”
Hoekstra made a complete fool of himself by not preparing himself for obvious questions. Simply saying “I was wrong” would have been enough.
Don’t misunderstand me. There are serious problems with Islam in the Netherlands. The fact that Geert Wilders needs permanent police protection is a scandal, as is the murder of Theo van Gogh, the double standards politicians and the media use with regard to Islam, the threat to freedom of speech, the huge security measures we have to take etc. The reason I occasionally visit JihadWatch is related to all that. But sadly, both the media and sites like JihadWatch are systematically misinforming people. This is why I have not posted anything here for more than a year.
But I do agree with one thing: Ayaan Hirsch Ali ask US Ambassador here would really have made me happy. She is one of my (few remaining) heroes.
StellaSaidSo says
I recommend that you read Raheem Kassam’s NO GO ZONES.
There is a huge difference between a poor neighbourhood that one might hesitate to enter, and an area where one is physically attacked for daring to do so. It is ridiculous to claim that a ‘zone’ which is patrolled by self-appointed SHARIA police is not ‘Islamic’. Of course there is no ‘Koranic verse on car-burning’ (DUH); but there are plenty of verses which exhort the faithful to appropriate or destroy the property of the ‘kuffar’. It should therefore be no surprise that Muslims are over-represented in the car-burning frenzies which occur regularly in European cities. Oddly enough, prior to the arrival in Europe of large numbers of Muslims, such displays of senseless vandalism were rare.
Klaas says
These are indeed just poor neighborhoods that one may be hesitant to enter. The govt report does not call them sharia zones (nor Muslim, nor no-go), and even in the article linked above only insinuates something like that for one region, and the police denies it. Read also the first reply to that article in the “free west media”. These zones are far safer than the favela’s in Rio or parts of Chicago.
I also object to the automatic link with Islam that is always made on this website. We have lots of problems with Moroccans and Turks here, and of course they are mostly Muslims, but I have not seen a shred of evidence for a religious motive behind their crimes, riots and car burnings.
Islam is bad enough by itself. If we start inventing or exaggerating facts, we weaken our cause.
Myfreeeurope says
Of course you object to an Islam involvement.Lefties like you will never admit you are taken over by uncivilized retarded monkeys from Africa .
Apparently you know Chicago and s America very well… so you are travelled, so you have $$ …
Good that means you are not a lower stratum.
Usually Muslim ass kissers are lefties that have money enough to stay away from this no go zones.
So yes you fit the profile.
gravenimage says
The idea that every society has always had Shari’ah No Go Zones is just ahistorical bs.
StellaSaidSo says
I don’t think anyone claimed that every society has always had sharia NO GO zones.
But we sure as hell have too many of them now. And denying their existence or playing down their significance only encourages their proliferation.
Klaas says
I am sorry, but I care about facts. Hugh Fitzgerald claims “Apparently the Dutch government agrees with what Hoekstra originally said, and not with the dismissive journalists, nor with his subsequent abject apology, for earlier this year it released a list of 40 “no-go” zones, mostly Islamic.” This provides a link to “freewestmedia”, which makes the same claim, but provides no link. The number 40 suggests that this refers to a report from 22 march 2007 (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_40_wijken_van_Vogelaar) by Dutch minister Ella Vogelaar. I could only find an evaluation from 2010 of the progress made in these neighborhoods: https://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/04583A80-C26C-4B0A-ABA2-C5A13960EB00/0/101012totaalbeeld40aandachtswijkeninnederland.pdf
This is all in Dutch, but it mentions neither islam, nor muslims, nor sharia, nor no-go. It does mention poor integration. If there is a list of 40, or any other number, of sharia no-go zones in the Netherlands, I would love to see it.
Ella Vogelaar is a member of the Dutch labor party, and they are the worst islam-apologists we have here. So it would not surprise me if her report is misleading. But that still does not mean we can make up the facts to our liking.
I never said that sharia no-go zones do not exist. I just hope that so far they do not exist here, in the Netherlands. At this point, I do not trust any information about this any more, neither the mainstream media nor sites like jihadwatch.
Since I like to check the facts, I have read the entire Quran, and in very much detail. I can confirm that everything people like Robert Spencer say about it is correct, and that the context makes it even worse. We should try to eradicate islam from this planet by any peaceful means at our disposal, by exposing it and the lies that apologists tell about it. But misrepresenting the facts is not productive.
don vito says
Great, great, read you next year.
Matthieu Baudin says
Hugh Fitzgerald would make an excellent Ambassador – perhaps to France or the U.K. or even Sweden, Germany or Poland. To have a voice like that could be monumental.
David Hayden says
I second the motion.
gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: Hoekstra, Hoekstra, Read All About It
………………………
Hoekstra was initially more right than wrong. If only he had had the concrete knowledge to back it up.
RK says
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an excellent choice and knows the truth on all sides. She is a great person with honor or and integrity. So yes she’d be great for this position and many more when it comes to the issues we are facing in todays day and age with the evil inhuman ideology from many muslims that is being forced upon us all and invaded into all our countries and lives.
GPT says
Just sack him for gross incompetence. The counter jihad movement needs people who check their facts before they go blabbering.
Pinchas Baram says
an outstanding essay by Hugh Fitzgerald. The essay by John Quincy Adams should be made more public. Meantime, the current ambassador to the Hague should be sent this article for his own enlightenment.