Home / Culture and Society / Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel Considers Suing Man Who Yelled “Slaughter the Jews!” at Oxford Lecture

Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel Considers Suing Man Who Yelled “Slaughter the Jews!” at Oxford Lecture

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On Monday night (8 Feb. 2010), at Oxford University, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon delivered a lecture to an angry crowd of students, faculty, and others. The harassment he received there from many in the audience was pretty standard for what Jews and Israelis get at universities when discussing Israel. The following article from the Jerusalem Post contains video of some of this abuse and harassment. According to the Post, one of the Muslims shouted as he left the lecture hall, "ItbáH al yahúd!" ("Slaughter the Jews!"). From the article:

Ayalon had considered pressing charges before police began their investigation. “This demonstrates our new policy on hatred and racism and we will have zero tolerance for anti-Semitism, something that should have happened a long time ago,” said the Deputy Foreign Minister.

In the UK, there are laws which ban incitement and hate speech as well as laws that allow individuals to sue in civil court over such speech when used in public. If the Deputy Foreign Minister goes ahead with the suit it will demonstrate, if nothing else, that the steady drumbeat of Jew-hatred from the Wahhabi will not be tolerated by Jews visiting the UK.

According to this article from Arutz Sheva, the man shouting "itbáH al yahúd" was not the only harassment that Deputy Minister Ayalon received at Oxford. One student shouted, "We will do to you what we did to Milosevic," the former Serbian prime minister who died during war trials at the Hague. Several students tried to physically assault Ayalon but were prevented from doing so by security.

Considering that Geert Wilders is on trial for defaming Muslims, penalizing the Muslim who shouted "Slaughter the Jew!" for hate speech at Oxford is only fair.

Sue the bastard!

Powered by

About Ruvy

Hi!! Thanks for coming to my article! I was raised in Brooklyn, was graduated from the City University of New York in 1978 with a BA in political science and public administration there. I lived in Minnesota for a number of years. There I managed restaurants and wrote stories. We moved with our children family to Israel where we now reside. My work can be found at Ruvy's Roost, Jewish Indy,, and on Facebook under my full name, Reuven Kossover
  • Ruvy, thanks for adding this to BC. If I may, there are a couple of points I’d ask you to please clarify. First, you say the heckling at Oxford of Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon occurred on Sunday night, whereas Jonny Paul’s Jerusalem Post article states it was Monday night. Were there two separate incidents? Second, after quoting the Post‘s report that “Ayalon had considered pressing charges before police began their investigation,” you add: “In the UK, there are laws which ban incitement and hate speech as well as laws that allow individuals to sue in civil court over such speech when used in public. If the Deputy Foreign Minister goes ahead with the suit….” However, the Post article fails to mention a lawsuit. Do you have independent information that Mr. Ayalon plans to sue? Perhaps this is a cultural misunderstanding. Here in the USA, “pressing charges” means to file a complaint with the authorities urging them to pursue criminal prosecution. It is unrelated to civil litigation.

  • Ruvy


    Thank you for raising these issues. I checked at the Arutz Sheva link, which I took my information from, and it said “Sunday night” and not “Monday night”, as it said in the Post article. I looked at the Haaretz link, and it, like the Post said “Monday”. And finally, in going to Google, all the other sources I saw mentioned “Monday night”. I will contact the editor about this in a moment.

    As for a lawsuit by Ayalon, or a request of the Crown to sue (the first would be a civil suit, the second by the state), there is none yet, but I’m certainly hoping there will be one a lawsuit. There was no mention of “pressing charges” in any of the articles I looked at.

    Thanks again for the comments and corrections, Alan. My mistakes in articles are my responsibility.

  • It sounds as though, even if Mr Ayalon had considered a private prosecution, he feels that the matter has been taken out of his hands now that the police have opened an investigation.

    Probably for the best. Who would he even have sued if the abuse was just coming from voices in a crowd? The police are better-equipped to detect individual idiots.

    Hopefully they feel one or two collars soon.

  • Ruvy

    Apparently, from the reports I have read, there was one specific individual who said this, and it would have been this one individual sued. Frankly, I want to see some Muslim forced to stand up in court and defend the indefensible. Also, I want to see some action by Israel to let the world know that calling for the death of Jews has a price.

    I’m tired of the Jew-hating bastards getting away with this with impunity.

  • zingzing

    while i don’t know about suing someone for hate speech… i mean, what’s the going rate for each racial slur? is a “nigger” worth more or less than a “gook” or “kike?” is “cracker” even worth anything? if you combine slurs, can you be sued for twice as much?… i do like the idea of some racist trying to defend himself in court. although it would probably turn into a political soapbox and nothing as hilarious as we all envision.

    but yeah… suing isn’t the way to go. sets a ridiculous precedent. i can see how calling for the death of the jews is a little more serious than just throwing around racial epithets, but that person should be publicly punished in some way, not made to pay a private individual. racism would become an industry… or more of one, i guess.

  • Ruvy


    In America, suing for hate speech is not quite the thing to do yet. Recall Jet’s article about hate speech as it relates to homosexuals in the States.

    But in England, while there are all sorts of laws outlawing hate speech, they are only enforced to protect Muslims. I want to see a Muslim in England forced to answer in court when witnesses point the finger at him saying “yes, he called for the slaughter of Jews at Oxford.” I want Muslims in England forced to learn what being sued for hatred means.

    In other words, I want to see a law I detest used against bigots I detest.

  • Samir S. Halaby

    It’s no laughing matter when anyone states anything negative concerning Islam, the whole islamic world is up in arms. The world press goes into overdrive printing the news, however when Muslims anywhere cry out ‘Itbah al Yahud’ ‘SLAUGHTER THE JEWS’ no one seems to care, the world pres is just not interested to print that news. It would seem that the world are plain cowards who have been henpecked into fear from standing up and repeating the words to the Islamic world ‘enough is enough’ ‘SHUT THE F— UP’

  • Zing makes a telling point about the civil suit. Personal Injury litigators are probably already salivating at the prospect of suing racists for monetary damages. But I doubt that criminal prosecution is the way to go, either. The trial would be a media circus, attracting the notoriety that Samir favors yet also giving the defendants an extraordinary platform from which to play their Jihadist Martyrdom card, casting Muslims as a persecuted minority. Ruvy is right to be angry, but vengeance in this case ought to be left to the international court of public opinion.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Samir –

    It’s no laughing matter when anyone states anything negative concerning Islam, the whole islamic world is up in arms.

    Is that so? Did American media go bat-guano crazy when [name of any particular conservative pundit or politician here] called for racial profiling of Middle-Eastern men?

    With about ten minutes’ worth of Googling, it would be very easy to provide a list of inexcusably hateful quotes by conservative pundits or politicians against Muslims.

    And in a different vein, perhaps you don’t remember how anyone who even looked Middle-Eastern were viewed with suspicion after 9/11. I know that there were more than a few Sikhs who were assaulted or even killed by oh-so-patriotic Americans who just knew these guys were terrorists, too.

  • Ruvy

    Ruvy is right to be angry, but vengeance in this case ought to be left to the international court of public opinion.

    Alan, don’t make me laugh. The “court of public opinion” is too busy eating “chop Joo-ey chop suey” to be bothered with justice or righteousness. In addition to the lies of the Goldstone Report being accepted as holy gospel by the mass media, the attempts to jail Israeli officials as war criminals for defending the country, the repeated lies of the Scandinavian press about Israel, and Radio Marya out of Poland – one venue of the “court of public opinion”, Blogcritics Magazine has been absolutely silent about one of the travesties of justice going on in Europe today, the kangaroo trial of Geert Wilders for daring to start the truth about Wahhabi extremism and the threat it poses to all of Europe.

    Public opinion was worthless in the 1930’s and today seems a miserable replay of that horrible era. At least today, we Jews have a state, an army and some government officials willing to demand justice in an unjust and murderous world.

  • Public opinion, Ruvy, is like a huge oceangoing vessel; you can’t turn those mothers on a dime. In my own country, public opinion during the 1930s was predominately isolationist. Our belated entry into the war against Germany came only as an adjunct to revenge against Japan for Pearl Harbor. The full horror of the Holocaust did not hit home until the camps were liberated and graphic celluloid evidence was disseminated. I agree that we ought to pay more attention to Geert Wilders, but his trial opened only three weeks ago. It’s unfair to blame Blogcritics, which is not a news-gathering organization, for lack of coverage. Have you submitted any articles to BC devoted to Wilders’s trial? I’d read one of those in a heartbeat, and possibly recommend it to a friend who might likewise pass it on, etc., etc. It’s up to us to change public opinion. If you’re insinuating that other people are too stupid or apathetic to learn the truth, then I honestly don’t understand why you blog and comment here at all.

  • As an afterthought, I hasten to acknowledge that the “full horror of the Holocaust” hit home earlier for those who lost family or friends in the camps; they understood the atrocities years before the rest of us caught on. I was alluding strictly to public opinion.

  • Alan,

    Several articles have been submitted here about “freedom of speech” which is one of the basic issues the Wilders trial is all about. These articles have generated hundreds of comments – and not one about the Wilders trial. BC usually reflects (like a very badly distorted mirror) the news of the world, and you must have seen something about the Wilders trial yourself. I tried raising the Wilders trial in a comment of two at some of these articles, but very time I did the spam monitor rejected my comments. So, I stuck it in an article where the spam monitors do not reach.

    I’m not blaming BC – merely using it as an example – in this case of the way Americans are so unable to look beyond their own bellybuttons that they cannot see the one of the nastiest travesties of justice taking place in Europe for decades. This is not even to mention the way their own universities are so inflamed with Wahhabi hate-propaganda, and university administrators are so enamored of these Wahhabi hate propagandists, that pro-Israel speakers can only speak there with difficulty.

    These newsflash things are limited to 300 words – and this piece carried exactly 299 words – only after some careful fiddling. Otherwise I would have spent a good paragraph on Wilders.

    It is worthless for Jews to rely on world opinion. We have to fight our own fights and to rely on any foreigner to fight for us is idiocy – with 6 million Jews testifying to the truth of that statement. I am the the only one here who might write anything that would pillory the liars at the UN, and frankly, I have more to do than write articles for BC. If I didn’t you’d see a lot more of them.

  • On second thought, there is one other fellow who might pillory the UN for its consistent Jew-hatred and lies, the Obnoxious American. But I haven’t see him around much lately….

  • Arch Conservative

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    It is all the rage on the left in the USA to bash Chistianity and then in the same breath bend over backwards to exhibit “tolerance” for radical islam.

    Take for example the so called piece of art called “Piss Christ” which was nothing more than a crucifix submerged in vat of urine. The New York Times and other newspapers published images of this “artwork” and celebrated it as an expression of free speech.

    Contrast that with the danish Mohammed cartoon contreversy. The NYT refused to publish the cartoons depicting Mohammed because it was offensive to muslims and we need to be sensitive about these things. Give ma n f-ing break.

    The American left does not believe in objectivity or equality. They’re bread and butter is playing victimization politics but they’ll only play if they’re allowed to dictate to everyone else exactly who the victims are and exactly who are the evil oppressors.

  • By the way, Glenn,

    What do you think of putting a man on trial for telling the truth about the Wahhabi murderers afflicting Europe (and now America)? The video “Fitna” tells it like it is dude. It is not filled with lies.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Oh lord. Geert Wilders is a giant tool. He does have a giant boner for Israel, though, so that’s….cool.

  • Geert Wilders is a giant tool…

    Alright, Jordan, you don’t like the guy. That’s okay. But, should he on trial for telling the truth about the Wahhabi murderers afflicting Europe (and now America)?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Wilders is on trial for hate speech against more than just Wahhabi murderers, Ruvy. He’s on trial for hate speech against “non-western foreigners and/or Moroccans because of their race.”

    In terms of “speaking the truth,” there’s no question that Wilders is speaking the truth as he sees it. The problem is that many of his fellow countrymen see things differently. The Dutch government has distanced itself from Fitna and all of Wilders’ activities and public opinion on the topic seems to be pretty split in the Netherlands.

    Look, there’s a way to have this discussion and a way not to. Inciting hatred against ANY people group isn’t the way to go about it and Wilders has turned this case into a media circus by appealing to Israel and using YOUR country to prop up his own ideology of bigotry.

    Plus the Netherlands has a pretty interesting history in prosecuting young Muslims with anti-Semitic hate speech, so they do need to send a consistent message if they intend to keep putting people away for these sorts of things.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’d also argue the extent to which any Muslims or any particular portion of Islam is “afflicting” the Western world. It’s a pretty laughable argument only raised by the most extreme of commentators (Robert Spencer, etc.)

    This site, from FAIR, contains some pretty accurate reporting on just how far this Islamophobic stuff is going and just how much of it has a basis in reality and how much of it has a basis on good old-fashioned imperialistic fear-mongering.

  • The extent to which any Muslims or any particular portion of Islam is “afflicting” the Western world is a pretty laughable argument only raised by the most extreme of commentators (Robert Spencer, etc.)

    Let’s see, Jordan…. Let’s see if we can’t get a few thigh slappers here.

    There was the attack on the USS Cole. Always good for a laugh. There was the attempted bombing of the World Trade center in 1993, the successful destruction of the Trade Center in 2001, the attack on the London subway, the attack in Madrid, the blowing up of that resort in Bali….

    Are you laughing yet? Or do I need to break out the laughing gas?

    Then from that Wilder’s shitty little “prop” Israel, we get the Dolphinarium bombing in 2000, the attack on the Park Hotel in 2002, the attack on the Church of the Sepulchre, the bombing of Sbarro’s Restaurant in Jerusalem, of Mike’s Place in Tel Aviv, the blowing up of the 19 bus in Jerusalem.

    Definitely laughable! Talk about slaughtering the Jews! It’s a laugh riot!

    But then we get to the pièce de réstistance – the civil war between the Shi’a and the Sunni in Iraq caused by the Wahhabi. I don’t even want to think about how many tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead from that civil war over the past several years. I could get a heart attack “laughing” over those deaths.

    Definitely a laughable argument, Jordan. And if these scum blow up a skyscraper in Vancouver – then whatta are you going to say?

    When will you figure out that these Wahhabi want to kill anyone who isn’t a Wahhabi?

    I know what the “charges” at Wilders’ trial are. And I know what the reality is. I know quite a number of folks from the Netherlands, and they’ve been educating me over the past 10 years or so.

  • Jordan Richardson


    Surely you understand that we can play Compare-the-Atrocity all day long and come up with many proposed targets for our Western Wrath. If we tabulate up all the violence in the name of religion, we’d not only be here for the next 100 years or so but we’d have more than enough people groups to eradicate. Then we could dig into racial violence and corporate violence.

    The point, as I’m sure you know, is that your attacks on Wahhabism as a whole are simplistic and should be discarded in favour of a more reasoned approach.

    You know full well that even the term “Wahhabi” is a contentious one within the Islamic community and that it carries similar weight to racially derogatory terms in other communities. And you know that it isn’t as accurate a brush as you could find to paint with, either. In other words, it’s probably more true that the Islamic extremists follow the teachings of the Qutbists. It’s probably less true that all of the religious violence comes from the Wahhabi.

    It’s probably also true that the bulk of your hatred of Wahhabi and the bulk of the Western fear over those people has to do more with their grasp for Arab nationalism and their tripling of oil prices in the 70s than it does to do with any sort of terrorist threat they pose.

    If you did want to propose a target for scrutiny within Islam, you’d probably find more of them within the Salafi tradition. I’m sure you probably suggest the usage of Wahhabi interchangeably with Salafi, but that would be inaccurate and probably offensive to Muslims on either side. Indeed, many Salafi Muslims would consider it insulting to be called a Wahhabi.

    It amazes me that, for all your valid criticism of the United States, you pretty much swallow the company line on this one, Ruvy. That you’ve bought into the fear factor generated by hateful ideologues that nearly rival the darkest corners of terror doesn’t really surprise me, I guess, but I just thought you had more integrity than that. Not sure why I thought that, but there you have it.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I know quite a number of folks from the Netherlands, and they’ve been educating me over the past 10 years or so.

    Ruvy, I’d question the quality of a lot of this “education” you receive. Judging from some of the paranoid emails you distribute around here and some of the other learning material, I think you should consider seeking other sources for your facts and research.

  • You know full well that even the term “Wahhabi” is a contentious one within the Islamic community and that it carries similar weight to racially derogatory terms in other communities. And you know that it isn’t as accurate a brush as you could find to paint with, either. In other words, it’s probably more true that the Islamic extremists follow the teachings of the Qutbists. It’s probably less true that all of the religious violence comes from the Wahhabi.

    For those here who do not know, the Qutbi are a more recent wrinkle in the Wahhabi-dominated Muslim Brotherhood that has provided the inspiration for much of what passes for “nationalism” in the Arab world. They represent the followers of Sayyid Qutb, a writer who espoused “offensive jihad”.

    I would call these terrorists Qutbists except for the fact that they themselves follow the playbook of Arab “nationalists” who aligned themselves with the Nazis, and the playbook of Amin el-Husseini, the Gazan appointed by the British to be the anti-Jewish “mufti” of Jerusalem, and who himself fled to be with Hitler during WWII. These folks pre-date Qutb by some decades – and follow the Wahhabi playbook, whether they be secularists (like FataH, Nasser, etc.) or clericalists (like Hamas, Osama bin-Laen)). Qutb may not have given his masters at the Muslim Brotherhood credit – I honestly never read his writings, so I do not know – but he apparently merely extends the ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    I’d love to continue this further, but must catch a bus to do Sabbath shopping.


  • zingzing

    geert wilders is just another nativist. he’s only getting so much of a reaction because he does crazy shit like calling for taxes on headscarves and trying to ban the koran (and then claiming freedom of speech). plus, the netherlands is a small country. one guy can make a lot of noise there.

    i doubt prosecution (which will fail) will do anything except give this chump more press. and i love how his party is called the “party for freedom.” i thought that was just an american thing. guy wants to boot out all the muslims, and so he calls his platform “freedom.” god, the irony.

  • A gentleman from the Netherlands read this article and thought enough of it to translate it into Dutch. Some Hollanders do appreciate that some folks overseas actually care about the travesty of justice going on today in the Netherlands.

    For my money, the Wilders trial is an attempt to prevent him from becoming premier.

  • A realistic view of the trial of Geert Wilders.

  • zingzing

    god help the netherlands if that asshole’s on charge. don’t you get it ruvy? that guy’s a racist. if you get on his bad side, he’s after you. he’s on your side for now, but just piss him off once, and you’re next.

  • zingzing

    in, not on. dammit.

  • If Wilders is a racist – mind you – IF, mind you – that’s your smear, not mine – he’s not a racist against Jews. That’s nice to see, for a change.

    But the truth is, he is telling the truth about the Wahhabi terrorists, and he is on trial for embarrassing the Dutch government for the failure of its admission of Muslims to Holland who refuse to in any way accommodate themselves to Dutch culture and live by its norms – like not raping any woman they see for example, or not beating up gays in the street. So, my condemnation is not of Wilders.

    In a situation where the establishment in Europe is invested with enslaving Europeans to the savage habits of the imported labor it needs to cover its lack of labor, he seems like a racist. But he is no racist at all. He is doing what he can to protect his culture and heritage from the savagery of foreigners who are protected from judgment of their own savagery – or expulsion for that savagery – by the establishment. That makes him a patriot.

    In 1730, a journalist in the Province of New York, Jan Peter Zenger, was put on trial for insulting the royal governor. The judge instructed the jury to find Zenger guilty. His lawyer, a man named Hamilton, argued that the jury should ignore the judge’s instructions – THAT THE TRUTH WAS A DEFENSE AGAINST A CHARGE OF DEFAMATION. The jury followed the argument of the lawyer from Philadelphia and found Zenger innocent.

    The Dutch government – and apparently its judges – have decided that truth is no defense in this trial. Where truth is not a defense, there can be no justice, for justice is based on truth. It has upended basic concepts of law to conduct a kangaroo trial to protects its own ass from Wilders and the threat he represents to an establishment that does not mind killing off Dutch freedom in order to continue to import cheap labor.

  • Jordan Richardson

    No. The Dutch government has decided, rightly, that hate speech is unacceptable. If his behaviour towards Muslims was turned towards the Jews, you’d feel the same way.

    Hate speech is not an acceptable substitute for open, honest dialogue. Wilders knows better and so do you, Ruvy.

  • Truth is not hate speech, Jordan. Hate speech is defamation and a lie. It is not hate speech to say that Wahhabi want to impose Sharia law in Canada, the United States or Europe, and thereby force you to convert – or die.

    They have said this themselves numerous times and in numerous places.

    Were it not for the obvious fact that the business establishment would no longer be able to import cheap (Muslim) labor into the Netherlands, this would not be an issue. Hate speech and defamation abounds all over Europe – against Jews, Muslims, Roma (Gypsies), gays and numerous other minorities. And the various governments of Europe do nothing at all to stop it. But it is hate speech because it 1)incites hatred and 2)is false.

    The Dutch government is standing justice on its head by deciding that the truth is no defense. It is robbing the Dutch people of the liberties they fought Spain to get, and fought the Nazis to retain.

    And you , Jordan, will defend this kind of distortion of freedom because you do not know any better. Canadians never fought for their freedom. So this upending of liberty will come to Canada, and you will lose your freedom- and you will deserve to.

  • zingzing

    ruvy, he’s a racist. so what if he has no problem with jews, or even identifies with them. he’s still a racist. racism sucks, no matter if they like you or not.

    he’s scum. it’s obvious to everyone.

  • zingzing

    and no, it’s not because he backs up the jewish people. it’s because he HATES islamic people, as a people. so don’t get started on that.

  • zingzing

    “Canadians never fought for their freedom.”

    lucky canucks, eh, ruvy?

  • Jordan Richardson

    They have said this themselves numerous times and in numerous places.


    The Wahhabi might want to “impose” Sharia around the world, just as the Christians might want to impose their own codes of laws and so forth. Religious groups of all stripes have wanted to impose their rules on the culture for ages. This is nothing new.

    The problem with what Wilders says, Ruvy, is that he makes NO distinction between Muslim extremists and average Muslims. In his mind, they are one and the same.

    This is not “truth” by any stretch of the imagination.

    Statements like this:

    “It is not acceptable for people to completely cover themselves on the street. It threatens public order and security. Plus it is a terrifying sight and only increases the cleft between natives and foreigners.”

    And this, from Bill Maher’s Religulous:

    “Islam is, according to me, a violent religion, the Koran is a violent book, and Mohammed was a violent prophet.”

    And this, from a speech to the ultra-conservative DuPont-funded Hudson Institute:

    “The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.”

    And so on.

    His out-of-context Quran quotations are as vile as anyone else taking out-of-context quotations from the Torah to prove that Judaism is a fucked up religion. Trust me, you don’t have to go very far to accomplish that goal.

    The sad thing here is, Ruvy, that you’re allowing this sort of bigotry and prejudice in the name of “truth.” Well Hitler thought he was telling the truth too, pal. Keep that in mind.

  • zing,

    As I pointed out, it was a Dutch man who has backed me up, and was nice enough to translate my article into Dutch. I would assume that knows a hell of a lot more than you do about what is going on where he lives. You, by contrast, can tell me more intelligently about the Satmar Hassids who live in Williamsburg. So, if you want to scream about the Satmar, go ahead. Since you live there now, you have the “inner handle” that I don’t. I wouldn’t whine about Wilders if I were you. In the end, he is defending something that you and a lot of other North Americans have forgotten all about – freedom.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Jordan, will defend this kind of distortion of freedom because you do not know any better.

    Ruvy, I’m a normal Canadian guy trying to enjoy life. I don’t claim some deep historical meaning or some sort of history of fighting for my survival. And I don’t take anything you say all that seriously because you’re a hypocrite.

    But you should know that I’d much rather go down in flames defending honesty, compassion, tolerance, and love than I would waste my life defending liars, bigots and morons.

    You can make all the predictions you want about some “upending of freedom” coming to my country. I’ll try to tell some of my Muslim friends to be gentle when they chop my fingers off, I guess.

    Until then, I’m going to keep supporting their rights to live freely without hateful persecution from those who distort history to defend their own crude, dishonest worldviews.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Wow, Ruvy. You found a Dutch man to back you up. Do you really think that means anything?

    And fuck off with that “inner handle” shit. You claim an “inner handle” everywhere from my country to fucking China. If anyone should be taking that advice around here, it’s you.

  • Jordan,

    The Wahhabi might want to “impose” Sharia around the world, just as the Christians might want to impose their own codes of laws and so forth. Religious groups of all stripes have wanted to impose their rules on the culture for ages. This is nothing new. The problem with what Wilders says, Ruvy, is that he makes NO distinction between Muslim extremists and average Muslims. In his mind, they are one and the same.

    Let’s look at that statement one more time, Jordan The problem with what Wilders says….

    Wilders says. The Wahhabi in Europe act. Lets go through those actions one more time.

    1. The say that Western women dress like prostitutes and deserve to be raped – and then they gang bang them.
    2. They demand Sharia law and intimidate Europeans into not giving out piggie banks.
    3. They refuse to follow any of the values of the Europeans and insist only on following their own culture. They do this and the Europeans bow down in submission. Jews do this and they get stern lectures.
    4. They have intimidated European broadcasters into never mentioning Muslims as terrorists – a prime example is the BBC – and in addition to that, they have intimidated European broadcasters into not even using the word terrorist to describe terrorists!.
    5. They have intimidated European police so that they have established “no-go zones” in various countries – where Muslim gangs, and not the law, rules.
    6. They have no compunction over inciting hatred and practicing hate speech in Europe. Watch this video – and this video.
    6. This is in addition to the murder of Theo van Gogh, the bombings in London and Madrid, the violent demonstrations over cartoons.

    In other words Jordan, these are ACTIONS, not civil dialogue. In the face of these ACTIONS, dialogue will not suffice. Action must be taken to defend the country’s culture. In the absence of intelligent regulation, now that action must be extreme. The more you let a cancer fester, the more extreme the operation must be to remove it. This is not merely a fact of biology, it is a fact of political life as well.

  • To summarize: Geert Wilders has to take an extreme position because his country has been pushed into an extreme position. Had action been taken to somehow intelligently regulate the importation of cheap Muslim labor and force integration to a degree earlier, when Pim Fortuyn was killed, Geert Wilders would not be even able to propose what he does – the majority of Dutch people would view it as racism. But now? Now it is needed.

    But that is not the issue. The issue is that Geert Wilders has told the truth about the Muslims who have come to live in his country – and his government is very embarrassed by that truth – hence the trial. Were it not for the terrorism of the Muslims in Europe and elsewhere, “Fitna” would be a wrongful distortion of the Qur’an, and it would be racist as well. It is the actions of Wahhabi terrorists that have given it the terrible ring of truth.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Alright, let’s put some of this philosophy to the test then.

    Geert Wilders is entitled to his extremism because he believes his country is in the grips of Muslim extremists. In order to back this particularly round of “logic,” Wilders and his ilk (of which Ruvy apparently considers himself a proud member) produce lopsided accounts of history to promote the idea that extremism is “invading Europe” and that if it isn’t “stopped” in Europe it will make its way to North America.

    This is something that Wilders has said, almost word for word. See his speech to the Hudson Institute for more on this particular bit of insanity.

    (I notice that Pim Fortuyn’s name is brought into the discussion, too. There is no justifying his assassination at the hands of Volkert van der Graaf. But Volkert van der Graaf was not a Muslim. While he did claim that he was outraged over Fortuyn’s point of view, Volkert van der Graaf was an animal rights activist and a vegan. We had better keep an eye on them too, as they could represent a terrorist cell simply waiting to explode all over the Netherlands.)

    It stands to reason that Ruvy would align himself with an individual like Wilders. Wilders does, after all, represent pretty much everything Ruvy represents and they’d probably make fast friends.

    The thing is that Wilders’ philosophy has to have an end game. An ideology like Wilders’ has to look like something, it has to be implemented.

    So what happens when you have the sort of frenzied fear of The Other permeating a society? What happens when you have fear of a particular group of “invaders” infusing a group of people who claim they “speak the truth?”

    How different is what Wilders says about Muslims from what this man said about Jews:

    If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school, it is in his soul. Even if there had never been a synagogue or a Jewish school or an Old Testament, the Jewish spirit would still exist and exert its influence. It has been there from the beginning and there is no Jew, not a single one, who does not personify it.

    How different is Wilders’ continued preaching of intolerance from the above quotation, Ruvy? Wilders’ desire to expel Islam from Europe, in the name of “truth” and in the name of “protecting the West,” seems to sound pretty familiar.

    The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any platonic way. For the Jewish spirit as the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have judaized our people within a very short time.


    Islam is the Trojan Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilisation as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this?

    If you can’t see the sickening parallels, Ruvy, you’re blind and beyond all hope.

  • Jordan Richardson

    And Ruvy, I get that there’s religious extremism in the world. But I also get that there’s extremism in every other arena too. The answer to extremism is not MORE extremism.

  • Jordan,

    I can play with lies and bullshit around with quotes also. But let’s drive the point home with a sledge hammer, so that even you, blind as you willfully desire to be, can see it.

    1. JEWS did not gang-rape women in Vienna – or anywhere else in Europe, and then allege that the women were dressed as prostitutes and deserved it.
    2. JEWS did not force the introduction of Jewish law on non-Jews, nor did they ever call for it – even in Poland, where they were 10% of the population.
    3. JEWS did not riot in the streets condemning freedom or democracy – or any of the values that Europeans may have felt that they held dear.
    4. JEWS did not riot in the streets of Europe and call for the murder of non-Jews.
    5. JEWS never created “no-go” zones for non-Jews anywhere in Europe – even when they were interred in ghettos.
    6. JEWS did not murder off Theo van Gogh.
    7. JEWS did not blow up bombs the London Undergound, nor set off bombs in Madrid, nor attack Mumbai, and they did not blow up the World Trade Center.

    Therefore the threat that Hitler (or any number of Jew-hating writers in Europe) outlined was fictional. It was non-existent, and existed in the mind of the Jew-haters of Europe. So the writing was hate-speech.

    The threat of the Wahhabi terrorists in Europe has been real. So was the murder of 14 people at Fort Hood in the United States. So was the murder of over 3,000 Americans in the World Trade Center attack.

    Geert Wilders does not want Muslims in the Netherlands because they don’t speak Dutch – he wants them out of his country because they have done what no group of Jews have done – they have turned his country into a nightmare. They have turned other nations into nightmares too, but it is in the Netherlands that a voice is speaking up forcefully against that nightmare – and the establishment is trying its damndest to shut that voice down.

    I do not agree with everything he says about the Qur’an at all. But, what he has seen of the practice of the Qur’an in his country by the Wahhabi terrorists who preach in the madrassas there more than justifies his views. You may not like that, but I know Canadians living in Western Ontario who do not like the influence Muslims have in their cities, and others who are disgusted with the Jew-hatred experienced by Jews in various schools in Canada.

    ON THE OTHER HAND I also know Muslims in Canada who are disgusted with what the Wahhabi have done to Islam and who reach out their hands in friendship to Christians and Jews.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Ruvy. Ruvy, Ruvy, Ruvy.

    The whole point of what I’m talking about with Wilders has to do with Hitler’s lies. No entire culture deserves to be denigrated, as you so skilfully pointed out. That is, again, the whole point.

    You said yourself that Wilders wants Muslims out of Europe. This is absolutely true.

    You also say that there are Canadians living in Western Ontario that do not like the “influence” of Muslims in “their cities.” This is also true.

    There are also Canadians living in Vancouver, where I’m from, who do not like the “influence” of Asians.

    There are also Canadians living in Alberta who do not like the “influence” of Afrikaans.

    There are also Canadians living in Newfoundland who do not like the “influence” of non-whites.

    There are also Canadians living in Quebec City who do not like the “influence” of Jews.

    You know what the difference is between this hatred and the hatred espoused by Wilders? Nothing. In fact, these people share an innate need to justify the unjustifiable.

    The actions of a minuscule percentage of a people group NEVER justify extremism. Nothing justifies extremism among rational men and women, Ruvy. Nothing justifies extremism among compassionate men and women, Ruvy.

    No matter how many buildings “they” burn down, nothing justifies converting ourselves and our societies and our children to insanity for “the cause.”

    And if you disagree with that and you fully support the promotion of hatred of a people group over the actions of a vile few, you had better open your fucking windows, load your fucking guns and start shooting. What are you waiting for? We’re all in danger, Ruvy!

    Start the slaughter.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It strikes me as absolutely shameful, too, that in light of everything you have been through you decide to select a path wrought with such hatred and ignorance. You, of all people, should see the red flags in the words of “men” like Wilders, Ruvy.

    You should know better, for fuck’s sake.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Oh, and there were no lies in those quotations. Those madmen believe(d) every single word of what they had to say. I hope to everything decent in this world that you don’t have the courage of your convictions.

  • A friend of mine was born in South Africa – he was an Afrikaner farmer there until 1993 – when he decided to move to the Netherlands. I’ll let you deduce why.

    Well, guess what! He returned to his native country, setting up a branch office of the agricultural equipment company he worked for. He found the Netherlands stifling. By 2006, when I think he moved home, I suspect a large element of that stifling feeling came from the fear that his wife and daughters would be raped by Muslims. He was more willing to risk living under black rule in South Africa, with all the problems that South Africa has experienced, then he was under a white dhimmi régime in Den Haag.

    That should tell you something, Jordan. If it doesn’t, you are as blind as a bat. And now preparing for the Sabbath must come first, and this computer can come second.

    Shabbat Shalom

  • Irene Wagner

    This may be why the New Atheists from the UK seem to be so much more passionate and committed than their counterparts in the US. Religion in the UK is life-threatening (“Slaughter the Jews!”) In the US, religion is mainly just annoying (“Say Merry Christmas, not Merry Xmas, you infidel!”)

    Ruvy, you already know I am not an apologist for every Jewish action. Listen though, anyway. You’ll wear yourself out if you get over-exercised at every instance of Jew-hatred. It’s a fact of life. It’s a fact of history, and it will be a fact until the end of history. I know this seems too easy for me to say, because I don’t hear bombs near my house; but here it is. Keep on writing to inform, but keep it all in perspective:

    This hatred is forged in realms over which you have no control.

    Shabbat Shalom to you and your family, and Todah for the article

  • Dear Irene,

    Thank you for your concern. Actually, my goal was not to scream about Jew-hatred in this article. My goal was to illustrate that there is a new and less tolerant attitude toward Jew-hatred world-wide, and that this change is long overdue. On Thursday, an Arab soldier serving in the IDF near the village of ReHelim was stabbed by a “cop” for the PA and died of his wounds in hospital. This “cop” was trained by an American general who warned that in if the Arabs did not get their “Palestine” by 2011, there likely would be war here.

    American interference in our affairs is intolerable, and the possibility rises each day that the Americans who do interfere in our affairs will be killed off, and these will be righteous acts of justice by Jews sick and tired of American interference in our affairs.

    Be that as it may, yesterday, an Arab in Hevron who lunged at an Israeli soldier was killed, as Israeli troops opened fire on him – instead of merely trying to stop him as would have happened if the soldier had not been killed by the American trained “cop” near ReHelim.

    We are sick of Arab terrorism – and we will no longer tolerate the smearing of our people overseas or at home. We will no longer be nice or tolerant of these bastards – wherever they are. And you will see Jews killing more and more of those who hate us in the near future. If they want us to die, they do not deserve to live.

    Our anger is forged in realms that Jew-haters have no idea exist.

  • I’ve been waiting and looking for some kind of update to this story that I submitted almost a week ago. Finally, one has shown up. The student who shouted itbáH al-yahúd at the Deputy Foreign Minister has now claimed that what he actually said was quite different. From the blog-site Israel Matzav:

    The Oxford student who shouted “slaughter the Jews” in Arabic at Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon during his talk at the university last week says his remark was misunderstood.

    The Oxford Student newspaper named the student as sophomore Noor Rashid and said that Rashid claimed he used a classical Arabic chant “Khaybar ya Yahod” which commemorates a seventh-century battle between Arabs and Jews.

    The battle of Khaybar was an attack launched by the prophet Muhammad in 629. It led to the defeat of the Jewish community in the Arabian peninsula, forcing the Jews to pay half their income to the Muslim victors.

    “My version went: ‘Khaybar, O Jews, we will win.’ This is in classical, Koranic Arabic and I doubt that apart from picking up on the word ‘Jew,’ that even the Arabic speakers in the room would have understood the phrase,” Rashid told The Oxford Student.

    So, now we have a name for the bastard. All we need is for the Israeli foreign ministry to follow up on Danny Ayalon’s words. This taqqiya (lying with religious sanction) must not be allowed to continue. Any Jew who lives in Israel knows the curses the Arabs throw at us, and I’m sure Deputy Minister Ayalon is not so upraised from the “Arab street” that he doesn’t understand when he is being spit at by some Jew-hater.

  • BTW, Ruvy, I misspoke in my earlier comment. It’s not my prerogative, as mere human, to try to discern the essence and the purposes of God.

  • At the same time this is occurring, it turns out that Netanyahu has been keeping very quiet about the American arms embargo of Israel that has been going on for quite a number of months now.

    The whiny tone of the article I cite hides a new reality. Not only is the American dollar not worth any sacrifices for any longer, but the American government is in fact acting as an enemy to this country. Which means that we in Israel need not feel beholden to you any longer. It will explain the attempts by Netanyahu and Lieberman to woo Russian aid and cooperation. It explains the very gentle way in which the Israeli government talks about “all options being on the table” with respect to Iran and a number of other hints that Israel is finally pulling away from the American aid teat. It certainly does explain the aggressive attitude by Foreign Minister Lieberman lately, an attitude that is more than welcome, and more than overdue.

    It’s not all good news – but it certainly is an improvement!

  • On the same old bad news front, while MK Tzipora Hatovely (Likud)- the smart Tzipora in the Israeli parliament – recommends granting citizenship to the Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria and ending the bullshit “two state solution” garbage, the World Council of Churches is pursuing its usual hate campaign against the Jewish people. The way they act, one would never have thought that Hitler (with the active cooperation of Amin el-Husseini and the passive cooperation of the British and American governments) had managed to murder off one third of our people.

    From the article: Anit-Israel activists are representing the KairosDocument as a unified call for a boycott from the leaders of the Palestinian churches. It’s not. The signatories include some impressive sounding names, such as Michel Sabbah the former Patriarchate of the Catholic Church in Jerusalem, MunibYounan the Lutheran Bishop of Jerusalem, and Archbishop Theodosios Atallah Hanna of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

    However, the only one actually speaking on behalf of his church was the Lutheran bishop Munib Younan, and his Church is tiny, with only a few hundred members.

    Otherwise, while it’s dismaying to see bishops okaying mass murder, the signatories to the Kairos Document represent no one but themselves.

    I asked the Reverend Gregerson why the United Church of Canada attended this gathering. He was quick to point out that the UCC hasn’t actually signed the document. He assured me the Church doesn’t support terrorism and said he went to show solidarity with the Palestinians.

    When I asked about the document’s endorsement of terrorism as “legal resistance,” it appeared Gregerson hadn’t noticed this before and said he couldn’t comment on it.

    He added that he thought the Palestinians were clear about the need for non-violence and said he “felt strongly that the document was built on principles of Christian love.” …..In contrast to Islamists who proclaim their love of death, the churches speak of “a culture of life.” They even speak of “love and mutual respect.” But in a document that approves mass murder, such words ooze hypocrisy.

    Yup!! More “love” from the lovely Christians! More of the same shit we’ve been fed for 17 centuries. I think I’ll step away from the computer for a few moments to puke.

  • Ruvy, this is horrible.
    Speech is speech.
    Violence is violence.

    It should be dealt with. For the sake of justice and out of respect for those of us who make an effort to control ourselves and deal with our anger appropriately. And if it’s not dealt with there should be a campaign to hold those in charge accountable.

    “Inaction breeds doubt and fear. Action breeds confidence and courage. If you want to conquer fear, do not sit home and think about it. Go out and get busy.”
    Dale Carnegie

  • Geek Girl,

    I’m not sure to which you refer to as being terrible. There is the threat of violence against any Jew overseas who expresses prideful views of Israel. Note that in addition to the Jew-hating insult from Noor Rashid towards the Deputy Foregn Minister, there was also attempted physical assault – this in the Oxford Union. So much for Oxford deserving any respect from a Jew.

    There is an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility facing any Jew at many university campuses in the United States, Canada or Europe who is proud of his ancestral homeland. Additionally, there is an attitude of open hostility by European politicians against Jews who do not actively condemn Israel. According to the head of the Jewish community in Malmö, Sweden, commenting on the head of the council there, One of the things that bothers Sieradzki most, however, are Reepalu’s statements about a pro-peace rally arranged by the Jewish Community in Malmö in response to the December 2008 Israeli incursions, which came under attack from members of a violent counter demonstration. According to Reepalu, the organization “sent the wrong signals” by holding the demonstration instead of distancing itself from Israel’s actions. “If you read between the lines, he seems to be suggesting that the violence directed toward us is our own fault simply because we didn’t speak out against Israel,” Sieradzki explained.

    Then there are the actions of various parliamentarians in the UK. This member of the UK House of Lords, for example, who fortunately was disciplined by her party whip.

    You quote Dale Carnegie, to wit, “Inaction breeds doubt and fear. Action breeds confidence and courage. If you want to conquer fear, do not sit home and think about it. Go out and get busy.”

    This is good advice for a salesman, Geek Girl. Those vacuum cleaners, or encyclopedias, magazine or internet ads, or insurance policies will never get sold to generate commissions if the salesman sits at home doing nothing, fearing rejection. It is not such good advice for one who would make a revolution – for that is what it will take to change things in Israel and for Jews world wide for the better.

  • Ruvy, with regard to #44 perhaps it is time that Jews did become violent in response to what they’ve been subjected to. Sometimes the only way to deal with a group of thugs is by being reciprocal in action.

    I’ve had my fill of Muslims and Christians trying to shove their beliefs down my throat. And you are on point when you steadfastly maintain that Jews do not go around trying to gain converts. Perhaps that is why Jews are vilified. They don’t force their beliefs upon the Gentiles and in some perverse way Gentiles are threatened by the same. I can only come up with this analogy and it is in no way meant to disparage you or your faith. This situation reminds me of the way the Masons are treated in some circles. People get this idea that they’re some secret society with a diabolical plan to rule the universe. Does that make any sense to you?

  • Silas,

    I have to go on guard duty in about 5 minutes and cannot answer your question. But in line with what Geek Girl wrote earlier, you can examine this article from Arutz Sheva. In line with more existential threats, you can examine this article by Roger Simon from Pajamas Media. Read the comments to it as well.

  • Thanks, Ruvy. Positive thoughts sent your way while on duty. Stay safe.

  • STM

    Ruvy, if the the police are investigating, the Crown will likely prosecute if they can get enough evidence.

    They are pretty serious over there about incitement in regard to this stuff … or in the American context, “fighting words”.

    It’s not just about protecting Muslims from hate crimes; Britain, as the centre of an old empire that spread across the world, is now a veritable huge melting pot. London is a multi-cultural city in the broadest sense, and there are people there of all colours, races and creeds from all over the commonwealth.

    In the current climate, I don’t think they’d have a problem prosecuting anyone no matter what their religion. Remember, too, in relation to that that Britain is at the forefront of the old “war on terror” and isn’t taking any nonsense from would-be jihadis in that country.

    While the line is a bit blurred in the UK between what constitutes free speech and what constitutes incitement, I think there’s a big difference between yelling out: “Jews are war criminals” and “Slaughter the Jews”.

    Had it been the former, it wouldn’t have gone anywhere. Incitement to slaughter is not looked upon kindly in Britain, in my experience.

    I would almost guarantee that ifn the police can track down the shouter of the insult, the Crown will prosecute.

    After that, he’ll probably get a slap on the wrist in the courts, as is usual.

  • STM

    Ruvy: “Canadians never fought for their freedom.”

    That depends on your interpretation on whether the earlier settlers of British North America were Canadians or not.

    Considering they and the British defeated the invading United States and sent them packing back across the border in the War of 1812, I’d say they did fight for their freedom.

    The fact that Canada is an independent nation as a result of that victory and not an extra half-dozen states of the US is telling.

    Also, they fought against Prussian militarism in WWI, Nazisim and Japanese imperialism in WWII, and in significant numbers and at considerable cost in human lives relative to the size of their population.

    Maybe they weren’t literally fighting for their own freedom, but they were at least fighting for yours, Ruvy.

    And they are one of the largest NATO contingents on the front lines in Afghanistan, with one of the largest casualty lists to boot.

    So I’d say your argument, as usual, in relation to that is an absolute looad of bollocks.

    You’re a disgrace Ruve. An absolute fair dinkum disgrace.

  • Thank you for the positive thoughts and wishes for safety, Silas. They are most assuredly appreciated.

    It wasn’t a terrible deal going around with one of the other villagers in a truck keeping an eye out for Arab intruders at 02:00 – 05:00 in the morning. But it was educational. Most of the villagers are far better educated than I in the Torah, Tana”kh, Talmud, and Holy Zohar. So, I got treated to Jewish philosophy in the truck as we were on patrol.

    One point I learned was about “the treatment of iron” and how it relates to evil, and how we ought to respond to it. And this does relate to your observations in comment #57. A scholar known as the “Ramkh”ál” wrote that G-d takes humanity the way an ironmonger takes iron. He puts humanity in the oven, heats it up terribly hot, and as it cools beats it with a hammer to shape it. And as He does this, flakes come off the iron. These flakes are like leaders. They have their day, and than quickly cool off and disappear. The remainder of the iron is purer than it was, though it takes heavy blows of the Hammer to shape it properly – which is why bad things happen to good people.

    These flakes of hot iron that chip off, these leaders, are generally evil in nature, and while they are hot, have a great deal of power. It doesn’t help us greatly to oppose them. The wise man keeps his head down under the radar and tries to get through the evil times. Most of the time this works. But, once in the 20th century it didn’t. This philosophy, takín barzalá (Aramaic) or tikún barzél (Hebrew), I think it is called, reflects how Jews have historically acted in times of crises. That is why it took almost four years for Jews in Warsaw to finally figure out that they needed a militia to fight the Nazis. That is why the Jewish establishment shies away from violence in confronting enemies of the Jewish people.

    You managed to reflect the counter-intuitive response, the one of the martyred Rabbi Meir David Kahana, z”l, hy”d, who founded the Jewish Defense league in Brooklyn about 44 years ago. His response is the response that inspired me, rather than that of the RamKh”ál.

    There was a second bit of philosophy I picked up in that truck as we tooled down the roads of the village and the security road surrounding Ma’alé Levoná.

    That was that the normal state of things is not quiet and calm. This is a blessing or a miracle. The normal state of affairs is chaotic and disorderly, where you can rely on absolutely nothing. Implication for Americans: for a long time, the “normal” state of affairs there was quiet and orderly – therefore America was blessed. As things go from quiet and orderly to noisy, chaotic and unreliable, you are seeing that blessing being withdrawn.

    Just something for you to contemplate….

    Have a good morning.

  • Maybe they weren’t literally fighting for their own freedom, but they were at least fighting for yours, Ruvy.

    Stan, even given the doubtful premise that fighting for the existence of the British Empire constituted “fighting for my freedom” no Canadian ever fought for my freedom at all. Full stop. My father left Poland in 1921, when it was under the rule of Pilsudski. He arrived in the United States and is buried there. He was never in a German concentration camp at all.

    No Canadian, American, Brit or anyone else ever lifted a finger to save his (and my) family who were murdered by the Nazis, most likely at Lake Treblinka in 1939 or 1940. While the Americans and Canadians couldn’t do anything, the Brits could have – they could have opened up the Mandate to Jews fleeing death. They refused to, even after they could see the living skeletons at the concentration camps they liberated, even after the Nazi enemy was defeated – and allowed to get away on CIA and Vatican financed “rat-lines”.

    I don’t blame Johnny Atkins for that. He fought the good fight. I blame the damned British aristocracy and ruling class from the King on down to the lowliest yellow-bellied MP. And the present lot of that scummy bunch are no better.

    You defend the wrong people if you defend that trash. And that is all they are – trash. Full stop.

    Have a nice day.

  • STM

    Ruve: “no Canadian ever fought for my freedom at all.”

    So what would have happened had no one stood up to the Nazis? Where would the world be today? It’s a legitimate question.

  • zingzing

    stm: “Considering they and the British defeated the invading United States and sent them packing back across the border in the War of 1812, I’d say they did fight for their freedom. The fact that Canada is an independent nation as a result of that victory and not an extra half-dozen states of the US is telling.”

    um, so they were free to be an english colony? i think you and i both know that that’s not what that war was about to begin with. canada was just a political football that was used to bring us/uk/french problems to a head.

    no territory was exchanged, but the us made out pretty well in all the areas they were really concerned with, ie international recognition as a sovereign nation, the end of british impressment, free trade with the french, and unharrassed access to the midwest and other territories.

    the war ended not because one side or another won in any significant way, but because the reasons for the war simply did not exist after napoleon was defeated.

    just a few years later, a british admiral admitted that they couldn’t have defended canada against american attempts again. but that didn’t come to pass. why? because the us didn’t even want canada to begin with, and its reasons for even thinking about it didn’t exist anymore.

  • STM

    Zing: “no territory was exchanged”.

    Unpalatable as this might be, you need to bone up on your history there zing. The British captured more territory than the US but gave it all back at Ghent, as did the US.

    It was also the US that sought the peace negotiations through a third party. The celebrated Battle of New Orleans occurred after the treaty was signed, but before the news reached the US or Canada. The last significant land battle of the war was the British capture of Fort Bowyer from the US garrison in Mobile Bay, not long afterwards.

    The British were marching into an almost undefended Mobile itself to establish the base they sought in the Gulf when they got word of the end of the war and turned around and sailed home.

    President Madison is on record as saying the war was a disaster for the US and wished he hadn’t listened to the Warhawks in Congress, while Thomas Jefferson – one of those who thought it a duty to expel Britain from the continent once and for all and felt that was the opportunity – thought the capture of Canada in 1812 would be, and I quote, “Just a matter of marching”. Almost. Marching backwards is what it became.

    In most of the major battles, the US came off worst, and in the end suffered the greater number of casualties. The British were even able to burn down Washington – which I’m sure you know – after defeating General Winder’s army at the Battle of Bladensburg.

    The US also lost the naval war during the War of 1812, despite some of the early frigate battles giving the British a very bloody nose. In the end, the US naval and merchant fleet was bottled up in port, especially on the eastern seaboard, while most of the raiders attacking british shipping on the high seas were sunk or captured. On the great lakes, the fighting on the water was about even stevens. But it all became such a disaster, even New England wanted to separate from the union.

    You also seem to have some bizarre idea that being an ordinary American in 1812 gave you a greater chunk of rights than being an ordinary Briton. It’s bollocks. At the time, much of what was written in the constitution was lip service (Life, Liberty, all men are born equal – but only if they’re white and wealthy). Even the voting pattern was the same in the US and Britain: rich, white landowners and people of wealth and/or influence.

    The British dropped the Orders in Council before the start of the war, enabling free trade to begin again but the news didn’t reach America before the declaration. Madison said he’d never have gone to war had he known. Impressments were to round up British citizens to fight the French at sea in a slug fest that at that time determined the shape of the world – one power that acknowledged the rights of men, the other that preferred to chop their heads off … and impressment is not that different to the modern-day draft. A lot of British deserters served on American merchant ships and if some US citizens got caught up in it, so be it. As they still do, the British at the time didn’t allow their people to relinquish their citizenship … so even if they’d fled to the US, they were still British in the view of Britain. I can see their point of view on that, especially given the scale of the war with France.

    Don’t drink the third-grade history class Kool-Aid zing: even the recognised foremost American historian on the War of 1812, Donald R.Hickey, believes the US came off worst – in effect, he acknowledges it was a dreadful loss for the young colony in the war itself, although skilful negotiating at Ghent achieved much for America, and the seaborne victories and a couple of the land battles, especially New Orleans, gave them some strength at the negotiating table. It at least made the British sit up and take notice and put America on the world stage and on the way to becoming a world power by the start of the next century.

    If you doubt any of this, pick up a copy of Hickey’s book: Don’t Give Up The Ship, Myths Of The War Of 1812.

    It’s instructive reading, it’s accurately portrayed and very well studied as you’d expect from an American scholar of his standing, and it completely debunks the myths that most Americans – and Canadians – learn at school in regard to this conflict.

    I suspect the real reason it’s America’s least-known war is because America actually got its arse royally kicked and so it’s best to skirt around the issue.

    Yet, it’s always good to face up to the past without rewriting it, lest a similar thing happen again.

    But a victory it wasn’t. It was in fact America’s first lost war and the Vietnam of its day, so unpopular was it with ordinary Americans.

    The British weren’t too happy either. They’d were over fighting the French and the sentiment of the day was that they’d been stabbed in the back by their own kith and kin whilst engaged in a life and death struggle with Napoleon, the tyrant dictator/emperor of Europe.

    The facts of history on this can’t be changed zing, especially when the jingoism is taken out of the equation and they are studied in non-partisan detail.

  • STM

    Young colony … make that “young country”

  • So what would have happened had no one stood up to the Nazis? Where would the world be today?

    What kind of dumb question is this?

    All the nations who stood up to the Nazis stood up to them for the sake of their own survival. This included the Brits, the Americans, the Australians, the Kiwis, and ultimately the Soviets.

    But the point is, allied or not, they did it for the sake of their own survival, not the sake of the Jews. The Jews were not part of that alliance, and were not allowed to be, except for begging to form a unit in the British army – a unit the British resisted and resisted before finally relenting.

    So let’s not read any crap about how the Brits or anyone else fought for the Jews. The Jews who survived Hitler’s hell, survived WITHOUT any aid from Britain, America or Canada, and the Jews in the Mandate who survived the war did so because the Germans were not allowed to conquer the Suez Canal.

    I’m sorry, Stan. You do not have a leg to stand on here. The soldiers who liberated the death camps in 1945 may have been as mad as hell at the Germans for their barbarism – but they were not sent over to Europe to liberate Jews. That was a side benefit that came with occupying Germany. The soldiers who liberated the camps were there to protect their own nations from German invasion and occupation. And you know I’m right.

  • The facts of history on this can’t be changed zing, especially when the jingoism is taken out of the equation and they are studied in non-partisan detail.

    You are right about the War of 1812, Stan. Now, follow your own prescription when looking at the history of WWII. It’s a whole lot uglier than the textbook writers make it out to be – on all sides, including my own.

  • zingzing

    jeez, stan, i wasn’t calling it some major victory for the us-ra-ra-ra or anything. all i said is that canada wasn’t on the freedom march.

    i understand how it went, and it certainly looked like an american defeat in many ways, until it came to treaty time. it was an unliked war both here and in the uk, jefferson may have been overenthusiastic, but in the end, he was right. it was the opportunity, if not for taking canada, but for taking on england when it was ready to negotiate.

    who gained what that they didn’t have before? answer me that.

    “The US also lost the naval war during the War of 1812”

    considering the sizes of the fleets involved, i wouldn’t call it much more than a pyrrhic victory for the british.

    “But it all became such a disaster, even New England wanted to separate from the union.”

    actually, that little nugget of history has been erased, last i heard. there’s no evidence that that was ever seriously on the table.

    i’d say it was a pretty ballsy move to provoke the uk while they were at they most war-ready, especially as a nation that had yet to figure out how to get the mail delivered. and, as you say, the reasons for the war disappeared quickly. and with casualties mounting up to a pretty small total, i don’t think either side really meant it as more than a political move. (that does take into account that leaders are pricks who don’t give a shit about human life.)

    “You also seem to have some bizarre idea that being an ordinary American in 1812 gave you a greater chunk of rights than being an ordinary Briton.”

    whatever did i say that gave you that idea? if it was “so they were free to be an english colony?” you miss the intention. the canadians weren’t fighting for their freedom. the english were fighting to maintain control over canada.

    basically, i was just pointing out that that wasn’t the best example of canadians fighting for their freedom.

    and if you really want to back up the sections i quoted out of your #61 as a non-jingoistic reading of history, i’d like weigh your underwear.

    “I suspect the real reason it’s America’s least-known war is because America actually got its arse royally kicked and so it’s best to skirt around the issue.”

    it’s also because it was a political maneuver with less than 5,000 deaths that’s stuck between the revolutionary and civil wars. next, you’ll ask why we celebrate our victory in the spanish-american war so heavily. every december 10th, we smoke a cuban… oh, no we don’t.

  • Stan,

    Whatever did I say that gave you that idea? If it was “so they were free to be an English colony?” you miss the intention. The Canadians weren’t fighting for their freedom. The English were fighting to maintain control over Canada.
    Basically, I was just pointing out that that wasn’t the best example of Canadians fighting for their freedom.

    zing has a point, there. What you say about the War of 1812 is largely correct. But, Canadian textbooks portray it as a war to defend Canada – when in fact the Canadians were being exploited by the British as much as any other colonial holding was. The Canadians go waving the Maple Leaf around screaming drunkenly “we’re not the United States” because they really have no other identity. They are “not the United States”. Makes for a pretty long name for a country – Canada is easier to say.

  • zingzing

    ruvy corrected my capitalization. but he didn’t capitalize my name-thing. my laziness gains purposefulness?

  • STM

    Zing, I’m not accusing YOU of being jingoistic … some of your countrymen. Not all, either, same as I don’t think all Americans – or all of my own countrymen for that matter – are complere duffers. (Some are, in both places, though)

    Geez, tt was unfair of me to go on about the War of 1812. It’s a pet subject.

    And I should add here just in case anyone thinks otherwise, like most Aussies I love Americans. That won’t stop me from saying my piece though. Would you expect it to be any different???

    Nah, of course … thought not.

    And Ruve, whenever we are at screaming loggerheads, I always feel something’s not right in the world. It’s always good when it comes back to “civil”. I will still agree to disagree, though, but I do appreciate it when it all gets back to reasoned argument on both sides.

    Cheers boys, I’m having some spaghetti, bit of TV and off to bed …

  • STM

    zing: “the english were fighting to maintain control over canada”.

    Only against America. Most of the people in Canada at that time were loyal to the Crown. Including the French and the Indians and the many thousands of loyalists who left the US for Canada during the previous unpleasantness.

    Of course, you’re right about the pyrrhic victory too.

    Still, everything – and all of us – always benefits from a really close look at how these points in history really were.

  • “Lawfare” is a two way street. Another illustration of the different attitude toward our enemies. Israeli victims of HizbAllah rocket attacks are suing an Iranian bank. If we can freeze their funds, we can break them financially – far more satisfying than nuking them. Let’s hope that there is actually time to accomplish the task.

  • Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon refuses to meet with a pro-Arab “J Street” congressional delegation. Good!! It’s about time!!

    This will demonstrate to the Americans that Obama’s court Jews of choice (and the congressmen they send) are not welcome here. Let them go talk to the Arabs. We don’t need this trash here.

  • STM

    Zing, if you are happy with the life you have and don’t want to be taken over by America and America is trying to force that on you against your will, then you are fighting for your freedom … whether you’re in a British colony or not. That is the line that Canadians take today in regard to this. Thought we should clear that up. Americans don’t have the franchise on freedom.

  • zingzing

    never said we did, or anything like it… but to suggest that this war represents some sort of desperate fight for freedom by the people of the great nation of canada kind of misses the point of the war. this war was between the british and the us, but was more a part of a much bigger war between the british and the french. by looking at the end of the war, and the subsequent history that played out, it’s obvious that canada was never seriously a target, it was a pawn.

  • Stan,

    It isn’t often that I’ll stand up for zing for any reason, but be nice to the kid. If you’re going to get on anyone’s ass for knocking Canada, get on my ass (it’s better than arguing over closing the doors of the Mandate 70 years ago).

    We used to know this family that came from Ontario and they had emigrated to Israel, much as we had.

    Mommy and Daddy were from Poland, you know as in “Marsz, Marsz Dambrowski” – and the kids were born and bred in Canada. The old man taught me the Mazurek Dambrowskiego (Jan Henryk Dambrowski was a distant relative of his), and told me stories about how the Ukes would shoot at the Polish cattle across the border from Soviet Ukraine right near Hrubieszow.

    They had us over for the younger boy’s bar mitzvah and we were watching various tapes of The Godfather and the older kid started in on how he was proud of “his Canadian cultural heritage”.

    I started to laugh and I couldn’t stop. “What Canadian cultural heritage?” I heckled him. Beer, beavers, Dudley Dooright and hockey?” “You’re lucky the Americans didn’t swallow you up in 1812 or have you for an after war snack in 1866!”

    And I continued on and on in that vein. It was obscene, a grown man like me berating this 15 year old kid, but the idea of him sitting there, stubborn as a beer bottle, insisting on his Canadian cultural heritage just cracked me up.

    His parents were even more abusive of the kid, or they would have kicked me the hell out of their house. I certainly deserved it. But to this day, It cracks me up when some Canadian starts in on his cultural heritage. His cultural heritage is all of six words. “I’m not an American, thank G-d!”

  • zingzing

    ruvy: “If you’re going to get on anyone’s ass for knocking Canada, get on my ass”

    it’s not so much canada, i suspect, as it is a loyal subject of HM. no one gives a shit about canada.

  • You may be right, there. It’s heritage by dissociation.

    No reflection on Jordan who is his own person.

  • That’s true too. Loyal subject make for pesky combatants.

  • More on Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon snubbing J Street.

    Apparently, the congressmen these traitors to Israel hauled over for the Israelis to meet were active in the Obama campaign to weaken and delegitimize Israel.

    Congresswoman Mary Jo Kilroy (Dem. Ohio), for example, signed the Cohen-Boustany-Carnahan letter given to US President Obama in May 2009. This letter urged Obama to become intimately involved in forcing talks between Israel and the PA, and said the creation of a Palestinian state must precede transparency of the PA government, control over security, or a stable economy.

    Congresswoman Lois Capps (Dem. Calif.) attended the signing of the Geneva Accords in 2003 and served as an official monitor of the 2005 PA elections. She also co-authored a letter with Congressman Henry Hyde following the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif in 2005, praising then-US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice for applying pressure to Israel to open the border crossing from Gaza into Israel. Capps was a signatory to the Ackerman-Boustany letter of October 2007, which pushed Israel and Arab states to meet for US-brokered talks at the Annapolis Conference, and also signed the Cohen-Boustany-Carnahan letter.

    These are examples of the “pro-Israel” congressman Danny Ayalon had the sense to snub.

    As for J Street, when even a scum like Eric Joffie of the American Jewish “Reform” movement calls them “morally deficient”, you gotta know that these people are on the Arab take. And they are.