Amusing Islamophobia Blog Wars: Logan’s Warning vs. Brigitte Gabriel

Brigitte Gabriel

by Garibaldi

Time for a history lesson on the anti-Muslim Islamophobia blog wars.

It has been a while since we reported on “intra-Counter Jihad blog wars,” which are really nothing more than pitiful, though amusing, little soap operas. Our first exposition of the phenomenon occurred several years ago when Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs repudiated Ned May of Gates of Vienna, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in a very public way, for their associations with neo-Fascists and White Supremacists. In fact, there used to be a whole blog about it, Gates of Vienna vs.the World vs. LGF.

The invective and mudslinging got really nasty, but eventually Charles Johnson utterly abandoned the hate machine for greener, more sane pastures. Ever since that time Johnson has been a stalwart anti-bigot and has continuously exposed Spencer, Geller and other leading lights of the trans-Atlantic Islamophobia Movement.

There were also extremely amusing blog wars involving Spencer, Geller and Debbie Schlussel. Spencer at one time termed Schlussel a “freedom fighter” on par with his friend Pamela Geller. However, when Schlussel went after Geller, calling her a “charlatan” and “pseudo-warrior,” Spencer magically deleted any reference to Schlussel as a “freedom fighter.” Schlussel has also gone on the hunt against Walid Shoebat, Steven Emerson and Brigitte Gabriel, calling them “frauds” and “phonies” of the worst kind. We were happy to agree.

We also broke out the popcorn when bigot Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer started viciously sniping at one another. Bostom called out Spencer as a “plagiarist,” and “swine.”

It might be too early to call it the end but it looks like ex-booze buddies Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer are at each others throats. Bostom is accusing Spencer of plagiarism, and Spencer is replying that he is “miffed” by the accusation.

The sorry fact is that both of them plagiarize from Orientalists who have made the same arguments and presented the same research centuries ago.

The intra-fighting amongst the anti-Muslim Movement continues, perhaps a sign that this unstable movement is fracturing and will hopefully disintegrate under the weight of their own hate. The newest manifestation is the anti-Muslim website Logan’s Warning going after ACT! for America‘s Brigitte Gabriel, in a post titled, ACT!’s Brigitte Gabriel, $elling America a Bridge to Nowhere! Now that is a title that we can agree with! Whodathunkit, the truth from Islamophobes!

In something you don’t hear everyday, Christopher Logan, the “brains” behind “Logan’s Warning” criticizes Brigitte Gabriel for being too “moderate.” Really, according to Logan, Gabriel is too “moderate.” That’s like saying David Duke is a “moderate” anti-Semite.

Logan writes,

Well unfortunately the Queen of False Hope, Brigitte Gabriel, is back to doing her thing. Spreading false hope and censoring those who call her on her “moderate” Muslims are coming to the rescue nonsense.

Isn’t Brigitte the same bigot who said multiple times, “there is no moderate Muslim”? Isn’t she the same person who argued that a Muslim who practices or believes in the five pillars is a radical?

“a practising Muslim who goes to mosque every Friday, prays five times a day, and who believes that the Koran is the word of God, and who believes that Mohammed is the perfect man and (four inaudible words) is a radical Muslim.”–Brigitte Gabriel, Australian News

Logan goes on,

apparently the queen’s ego is too big, and or the money coming in from telling people what they want to hear is just too good to give up. Either way, her message of “moderates” coming the rescue is detrimental to America.

Logan also wants to point out,

I remember when I first took on this issue, there were plenty of Brits who did not want to lay the blame on Islam itself. They also were saying “radical Islam”. How did that work out?

Logan, don’t worry, in her heart of hearts Brigitte also doesn’t differentiate between something called “radical Islam” and “Islam.”

Logan continues to pile on,

Gabriel reminds me of a politician who will say anything to just to get through the moment…We are not going to win this war with your message. It is the equivalent of going to the doctor and being told you have a life threatening disease, but the problem will end up resolving itself…How much more time should be wasted in promoting that notion [moderate Islam]? How much longer until Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Frank Gaffney, and Brooke Goldstein admit they need to change course? Five years, 10, 20?…Speaking of debate Brigitte. Instead of sending your two henchman or the naive and ignorant Chris Slick here, why don’t you come out of the shadows and debate me on this? Explain how Islam will reform. If you are being honest with America you will be able to back up your argument, right? (Emphasis mine)

This has to be one of the strangest and silliest debates in history. Bigots arguing amongst one another about who is more “moderate” in bashing Islam and Muslims. What Logan is pointing out however is Gabriel’s inconsistent and contradictory statements and positions, a common phenomenon with hatemongers. One we noted in a previous article on Gabriel,

So Brigitte, what is it? Are there any moderates or not? Brigitte seems to be telling us that the only acceptable Muslims are the ones who don’t practice Islam altogether? Or perhaps, she’s even implying that the only good Muslim is an ex-Muslim?

Logan should really be coming out and saying, why not be honest Brigitte and just admit, as you have a million times in the past that you hate Islam and want to see it destroyed. Either take back your bigoted statements that you believe “Arabs have no soul,” that there is no “moderate” Islam or “moderate” practicing Muslim or reaffirm those positions.

What I find as interesting as Logan’s blogpost slamming Gabriel are the comments. Take for instance Sarah Elkins comment, she thinks Arabs are no good unless they convert to Christianity,

Spoken like a true Brigitte Gabriel inspired Judeo-Christian Civilizational Crusader. Who can forget Brigitte’s “Arabs have no soul” comment,

“The difference, my friends, between Israel and the Arab world is the difference between civilization and barbarism. It’s the difference between good and evil [applause]…. this is what we’re witnessing in the Arabic world, They have no SOUL !, they are dead set on killing and destruction. And in the name of something they call “Allah” which is very different from the God we believe….[applause] because our God is the God of love.”–Brigitte Gabriel, CPAC

A commenter by the handle “Christ possession” rails, accusing some Islamophobes of slowing down the fight against the “beast” of “Islam,” and impeding the fight to stop “mosques” from being built and “sharia law” from replacing the Constitution.

Abdul Ameer posts about the “counter-Jihad” strategy and the usefulness of using “merry Muslims” like Zuhdi Jasser to stave off accusations that they are bigoted,

“eib” wants to focus on fighting Prophet Muhammad. Maybe he missed the memo, but Muhammad passed away over 1400 years ago,

Then we have “Brit is exile” who goes on about the Crusades, implying there needs to be a return to them,

These people are some of the most disturbingly deluded individuals of our time, and expose not only their bigotry but their own dissimulation and attack on basic freedoms and liberties. It is no surprise that with all these frankly ignorant and expansive egos competing that they would turn on each other. I say pass the popcorn and let me watch.

Mondoweiss: Another Morphing Muni ad and a Hat Tip to Ayn Rand

Thanks to MondoWeiss for the link and the tip. Love the morphing ads.:

by Allison Deger (Mondoweiss)

Pamela Geller’s defeat the “savages” San Francisco Muni advertisements created a firestorm among local culture jammers who are challenging the pro-Israel pundit’s message by re-designing the originals ads. See the latest makeover above.

Rand appearing on Donahue said Arabs are “primitive savages.”

Incidentally, Geller is an avid follower of objectivist novelist Ayn Rand who is also an ideological compass for the presumptive GOP Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan. On August 14, 2012 Loonwatch noted Geller’s fondness of Rand goes beyond her website’s name, Atlas Shrugged, after the philosopher’s book, Atlas Shrugs.The text of Geller’s Muni ad is derived from a 1979 Rand quote from the Donahue Show. At the time Rand said:

If you mean whose side should we be on: Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages. [Emphasis mine]

By comparison Geller’s ad reads:

In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel Defeat Jihad. [Emphasis mine]

Screen shot 2012 08 21 at 1 19 07 PM
Meme recap of the evolving San Francisco Muni ads. (Image: Facebook)

For more background on Geller’s attack ads paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, see Annie Robbins reporting herehere, and here.

Pamela Geller of AtlasShrugs: Bus Ads Inspired by Ayn Rand’s Racist Views of Arabs and Muslims?

 SIOA, Geller and Spencer’s ad campaign

“If you mean whose side should we be on: Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savagesAyn Rand (1979, The Donahue Show)

Pamela Geller so adores the “objectivist philosopher” and author Ayn Rand that she gave her blog the name Atlas Shrugs, in homage to Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged.” Is it then a coincidence that her most recent hate campaign contained the text: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.”? Geller’s chosen description almost exactly parallels Ayn Rand’s statement regarding the conflict in Palestine, with the exception that she cowardly omitted who she intends by “savage.” As you can see from the quote above Rand described the conflict as one between “civilized” Israelis and the “savage” Palestinians and Arabs.

There is no doubt in my mind that in light of these facts the AtlasShrugs/SIOA/JihadWatch ad campaign is a racist and Islamophobic one. So far the ad campaign has run in New York and is running on buses in San Francisco. New York’s transit authority (MTA) initially refused to run the ads, Geller sued and won on free speech grounds. San Francisco has admitted that it fears being tied up in litigation and has decided to allow the ads even though they contradict its policy on “political advertisements.”

************

This is not Geller’s first foray into bigoted advertising campaigns.

The looniest blogger ever is a big fan of advertising her bigotry and hate of Islam, Muslims and Arabs on buses, taxis and other forms of transportation across the United States. Previously, Geller and Spencer teamed up for an advertisement campaign that claimed the pretense of helping those who want to “Leave Islam,” but weren’t able to out of “fear.” In reality, her message was not one of help but hatred, as was well covered. Geller’s aim was to defame American Muslims as an oppressive community that was secretly holding an untold number of former Muslims who want to leave Islam hostage.

These bigoted endeavors are generally attempts to gain publicity by Geller, but just ignoring her will not do–not this time.

Geller and Spencer’s recent ad campaign in the name of their hate group SIOA portrays Israel as “civilized” and its critics as “jihadists” and “savages.” The campaign is in response to advertisements that call on US citizens to tell Congress to stop sending aid to Israel, such as this one:

Melrose Walnut r

I believe this to be a worthy message and agree with it, but even if you don’t, even if you disagree with this advertisement on political grounds, to react as Geller and her ilk have is abominable. In characteristically hyperventilating and loony verbiage Geller and Spencer consider such advertisements to be not only “anti-Israel” (which they aren’t) but “anti-Semitic” and “genocidal!” Such a dilution and abuse of the very serious term “anti-Semite” should not only be condemned but countered by all those who expose bigotry, especially national Jewish organizations.

Geller claims that her ads are not about hate, and that the “savages” she is talking about are “suicide bombers,”

Because any targeting of innocent civilians is savagery. Mothers and children on a bus are targeted, and that is savagery. Kidnapping and murdering is savagery. The U.S. does not conduct war that way, and neither does Israel [this is a lie, which we have proven over and over–Ed.]. Now, there is sometimes the accidental death of civilians, which is far different than the targeting of innocent civilians.

The truth is Geller isn’t referring only to suicide bombers. She is putting forward a type of double-speak. Geller is reaffirming Ayn Rand’s racist position on Israel-Palestine, this is why the language is so similar between the two.

You will never hear Geller condemn Rand. I hope Geller gets questioned about this striking parallel between her ad and her hero and idol, Ayn Rand’s words:

(h/t: magicredpil)

A local ABC affiliate in San Francisco has some good coverage on the ad campaign and reaction from  residents and San Francisco’s city transportation (Muni), Geller makes a cameo as well:

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/video?id=8769863

There is a petition calling for the ads to be stopped. They seem to have a good case considering the fact that Geller’s ads are steeped in implicit racism and bigotry against a whole people and community.

UPDATE: A direct quote from Ayn Rand that is nearly identical to the words on Geller and Spencer’s Bus Ads  (h/t: BelievingAtheist).

“The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. WHEN YOU HAVE CIVILIZED MEN FIGHTING SAVAGES, YOU SUPPORT THE CIVILIZED MEN, no matter who they are.”

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/why-do-they-hate-us-they-dont/

Mona Eltahawy, an Arab-American journalist, created a firestorm when Foreign Policy Magazine published her article “Why Do They Hate Us?”.  If you thought the they and us refers to Muslims and Americans, you’d be wrong.  In fact, they is Arab men, and us is women.  Her article is a stabbing critique of Arab culture, which she finds to be heavily misogynistic.

If that wasn’t provocative enough, she goes further: according to her, these Arab men hate women.  ”Yes: They hate us. It must be said.”  To prove her argument, she issues a challenge: “Name me an Arab country, and I’ll recite a litany of abuses [against women] fueled by a toxic mix of culture and religion.”  The rest of the article is a recitation of that litany, interspersed with jazzy catchphrases such as “[w]e are more than our headscarves and our hymens” and “poke the hatred in its eye.”

There is no way to deny the basic premise that the status of women’s rights in the Arab world is abysmal.  Why then did Mona Eltahawy evoke such a hostile reaction from even the Arab women whose rights she seeks to protect?  The easy answer, one that Eltahawy and her supporters might argue, is that these women are simply brainwashed.  Too much “Islamism” in their little brains.  The problem with this argument is that it’s sexist.  It’s basically saying Arab women are too stupid to think for themselves.

The real reason that Arab women recoil after reading Eltahawy’s article is that, while she tries to connect to them based on their gender, she attacks other aspects of their core identity: their race, nationality, religion, and culture.  In fact, her racist (and somewhat babbling) screed is nothing short of a vicious attack on their entire civilization.

Eltahawy cites “a toxic mix of culture and religion” as the source of the abuses against women.  Oddly, she later says, “You — the outside world — will be told that it’s our ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ to do X, Y, or Z to women.”  Yet, it is Mona Eltahawy herself who is arguing precisely that.

By attacking their core identity, Eltahawy has succeeded in alienating her own audience.  Imagine, for instance, an American feminist arguing for greater rights for African women, while at the same time assailing the black race, African culture, and traditional tribal religion.  How receptive or thankful do you think these African women would be?  How pleased would the black or African community be if someone was writing articles about how backwards their culture is?

Mona Eltahawy’s article engages in trite, racial stereotypes.  Legitimate problems in the Arab world are sensationalized.  They hate women.  What an absurd exaggeration!  They have mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters–and it is reasonable to assume that, like other human beings on earth, they love them.

A man can love his wife and still abuse her.  He can have undying affection for his daughter but still wrong her in horrible ways.  But, by going so far as to say they hate women, Eltahawy has dehumanized them.  One recalls similar invective against Palestinian parents: they don’t love their children.  The message being sent is: they are worse than animals.

Women’s rights is an area of concern in many parts of the developing world, not just the Arab world.  Why single out Arabs?  Women face major obstacles in India.  Should we demonize the Hindu religion and the great Indian civilization?

Eltahawy lists off “a litany of abuses”, bringing up extreme cases to make her point.  By citing isolated cases and stacking them all up together, she ends up portraying an imbalanced and biased picture of the Arab world.

Racists don’t see nuance.  They lump all people of a certain group altogether.  That’s exactly what Mona Eltahawy does in her article.  She paints the entire people of that region–or at least its men–with one broad bush.  They hate women.  All 170 million of them.

In fact, not all Arabs are alike.  During my travels in the Muslim world, I saw all sorts of people, with a broad diversity of views.  I met conservative Muslims, liberal Muslims, atheists, Christians, Communists, hippies, you name it.  No sweeping generalization could be made about them (aside for, perhaps, their disgust of American foreign policy).

It is true that I was deeply disturbed by the mistreatment of women, religious and ethnic minorities, poor people, servants, and animals.  But, I also met people there–men, no less–who were also deeply disturbed by these things and would have no part in it.

Just as the viral Kony 2012 video drew criticism for reinforcing the idea of White Man’s Burden, so too does Mona Eltahawy’s article tap into historically racist Orientalist attitudes towards the Arab world.

By firmly pegging abuses against women to the Arab culture and Muslim religion, Mona Eltahawy’s article was nothing short of bigotry.  Indeed, one could hardly tell the difference between Eltahawy’s article and what could normally be found sprawled on numerous Islamophobic websites, such as Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch and Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs.  It is almost a surety that her article will be approvingly cited on such sites, which pit “our civilized, freedom-loving civilization” against “those barbaric, women-hating peoples.”

Had Mona Eltahawy been just any ole’ Islamophobe hacking away at the keyboard–had she been a Robert Spencer or a Pamela Geller–her article would hardly have made headlines.  It would have been just one of thousands and thousands of such hateful rants on the internet by anti-Muslim trolls.  But, like Irshad Manji and Asra Nomani, Mona Eltahawy has an official “I’m a Muslim” card.  That’s even better than the official “I’m an ex-Muslim” card that bigots like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Nonie Darwish proudly carry.  It’s probably even a step above the “I’m a former jihadi terrorist” gold card.  Eltahawy holds the platinum card and gets extra points for being a woman.

As other pundits have noted, Mona Eltahawy is–along with Irshad Manji, Asra Nomani, Tarek Fatah, Zuhdi Jasser, etc.–acting in the role of the “native informant.”  Monica L. Marks writes on the Huffington Post:

Why Do They Hate Us?” asks the latest cover of Foreign Policy magazine. Beneath the title stands a cowering woman wearing nothing but black body paint resembling the niqab, or full Islamic face veil.

Egyptian feminist Mona Eltahawy authored the article. Her central contention — that Arab Muslim culture “hates” women — resurrects a raft of powerful stereotypes regarding Islam and misogyny. It also situates Ms. Eltahawy’s work within a growing trend of “native informants” whose personal testimonies of oppression under Islam have generated significant support for military aggression against Muslim-majority countries in recent years.

Books by these “native voices” — including Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “Infidel,” Azar Nafisi’s “Reading Lolita” in Tehran, and Irshad Mandji’s “Faith Without Fear” — have flown off the shelves in post-9/11 America despite being roundly rebuffed by leading feminist academics such as Columbia University’s Lila Abu-Lughod and Yale’s Leila Ahmed. Saba Mahmood, another respected scholar, noted that native informants helped “manufacture consent” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by serving up fear-inducing portrayals of Islam in “an authentic Muslim woman’s voice.”

Although such depictions have proven largely inaccurate and guilty of extreme generalizations, they have become immensely popular. Why? Because these native “testimonials” tell us what we in the West already know — that there’s something inherently misogynistic about Muslims and Arabs.

By stirring up our sympathies and reinforcing our prejudices, individuals like Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Eltahawy have climbed to the top of the media ladder. Their voices are drowning out the messages of more nuanced, well-respected scholars.

Marks goes on to say:

Her fault lies in extrapolating broad cultural judgments from context-specific abuses, implying that Islam and Arab culture writ large are have toxically combined to create a hopelessly backward region that “treats half of humanity like animals.”

These native informants just tell us what we want to hear.  Their job is to increase hatred of Arabs and Muslims, something that is needed in order to sustain our multiple wars of aggression in that part of the world.

Native informants do not help fix the problems they point to.  Why, for example, did Mona Eltahawy choose to publish her article in Foreign Policy, an American magazine?  Why didn’t she write it for an Arab/Arabic publication, with a primarily Arab readership?

Instead she chose Foreign Policy Magazine, which was founded by none other than Samuel P. Huntington.  His famous Clash of Civilizations theory pit the Judeo-Christian West against the Muslim world.  How very fitting that Mona Eltahawy’s us vs. them article was published in the magazine he founded.

Eltahawy’s audience is clear:

You — the outside world — will be told that it’s our ‘culture’ and ‘religion’ to do X, Y, or Z to women.

Monica Marks writes:

 It is important for her readers, however, to understand the dangers of sensationalist coverage that over-simplify complex matters of gender, politics, and religious observance in Muslim-majority countries.

History is rife with examples of seemingly women-friendly arguments hijacked in the service of imperialistic and aggressive ends. While emotional and sensationalist portrayals such as this most recent Foreign Policy cover will sell copies, they do little to deepen our understanding of the contexts and conditions shaping women’s oppression in Arab countries today.

Indeed, the issue of human rights was routinely used by the colonial powers to justify the conquest and expropriation of land.  The Americas, including the land that is now the United States, was brutally conquered and stolen by Europeans on this very basis.  The indigenous peoples were portrayed as savages needing civilizing.  The white man would bring them “democracy”, “freedom”, and “civilization” (Operation Iraqi Freedom?).

In her article, Mona Eltahawi enumerates numerous abuses Arab women face.  However, none of these inhumanities–not even female genital mutilation–can be considered as problematic as the cannibalism and human sacrifice that the indigenous peoples of the Americas sometimes engaged in.  And yet, whatever failings the indigenous peoples had in their culture and civilization, it is now widely understood who the real savage was.

We can continue to pat ourselves on the back for how civilized we are, how free our women are, how we are so much better than them.  But, none of that will change the fact that we are the ones waging wars of aggression and occupation in the Muslim world.  We are the ones killing hundreds of thousands of their innocent men, women, and children.

It was in another article, also published in Foreign Policy with almost the exact same title–Why They Hate Us?–that Prof. Stephen Walt calculated the number of Muslim lives the U.S. has extinguished:  “a reasonable upper bound for Muslim fatalities…is well over one million, equivalent to over 100 Muslim fatalities for every American lost.”  To use a jazzy catchphrase of my own: mutilating a baby girl’s genitals is horrible, but dropping a bomb on her head is much worse.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

See, We Told You: Geert Wilders Xenophobia is Not Limited to Muslims

Still my favorite picture of Geert Wilders

Far-right populist Geert Wilders has made a name for himself through his anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric, and for this reason he is, to quote Robert Spencer, one of the “heroes” of the anti-Muslim movement.

We have consistently pointed out however that Geert Wilders and his allies are not one stop bigots. Behind the “acceptable” attacks on Muslims is hidden a wider xenophobia against ‘the other.’ A bigotry which if not born out of any consistent ideological character is definitely a reflection of the realization that playing on the fears of the majority may lead to positive results at the ballot box.

Wilders and his party, the PVV are riding a wave of popularity through the launch of an anti-Polish/anti-Eastern European website which has been the cause of much controversy and embarrassment in the Netherlands. After launching the site it was reported that the PVV,

would gain 24 seats in parliament if elections were held today, the number of seats the party currently holds, says pollster Maurice de Hond. Geert Wilders’ populist far-right party is the third largest party in the Netherlands.

Wilders’ PVV site displays,

news clippings with bold headlines blaming foreigners for petty crime, noise nuisance – and taking jobs from the Dutch. “Are immigrants from Central and Eastern countries bothering you? We’d like to hear from you,” it says.

The Dutch government has distanced itself from the website but this hasn’t ebbed the disastrous PR that Wilders move has generated.

Besides criticism from ten European ambassadors and the European Commission, the Dutch public has also expressed concerns about possible repercussions. Poles are calling for a boycott of Dutch products.(emphasis mine)

The issue was taken to the European parliament which just yesterday announced its ‘dismay’ and formal response to Wilders most recent populist move:

EP condemns PVV website, exec puts ball in Netherlands’ court

By Gaspard Sebag in Strasbourg | Wednesday 14 March 2012 (Europolitics.info)

Representatives of the political groups in the European Parliament, on 13 March, unanimously called upon the Netherlands’ Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, to condemn a website launched by his far-right political ally, the PVV party headed by Geert Wilders. Said website, up since early February, urges Dutch citizens to report problems they experience with nationals of Central and Eastern European countries. “Unacceptable,” “a disgrace,” “scandalous” – said MEPs. The European Commission, for its part, announced it would not get involved from a legal point of view and leaves the responsibility of assessing the lawfulness of the website to the Dutch authorities. A joint parliamentary resolution will be put to the vote, on 15 March (see box).

The EPP, which counts among its ranks the junior partner in the Netherlands’ government, the centre-right CDA, was particularly vocal. “We cannot tolerate, from a party that takes part in a coalition government, a call to hatred against nationals from another member state. That is unacceptable,” said EPP leader Joseph Daul (France).

Despite the fact that Rutte is part of the Liberal political family, ALDE Chair Guy Verhofstadt (Belgium) was unequivocal about condemning the “silence” of the Dutch government and the message sent by the website. “My group has nothing but contempt for Mr Wilders’ initiative.” Recalling the need to be even-handed in criticising populist tactics, Verhofstadt lumped together French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Wilders. “I wonder who is the extreme-right wing candidate [in France], is it [Marine] Le Pen or Sarkozy?” he asked.

Reactions from other political group leaders all condemned Rutte’s passivity, whose hands are tied by his need for Wilders’ support, and who thus claims it is not a governmental issue. S&D leader Hannes Swoboda (Austria) called for the website to be closed down. Polish deputy Jacek Kurski (EFD) said Rutte’s lack of reaction is “scandalous”. “The prime minister [of the Netherlands] is not taking up his responsibility,” said Marije Cornelissen (Greens-EFA, Netherlands). “The prime minister ought to have directly condemned this website,” said Peter van Dalen (ECR, Netherlands), adding, however, that the EP holding a debate on this issue is “too much honour” for Wilders.

Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who had already condemned the PVV website in February, welcomed the comments made in the plenary chamber. “It is unacceptable that EU citizens become target of xenophobic attitudes because they have exercised their right to move from one state to another,” she said. Reding also called upon on the Dutch authorities to “fully investigate the lawfulness of the website under Dutch law and Union law”.

According to Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE-NGL, France), this is not enough. “You continue to refer to member states and their tribunals but I thought that the Commission was the guardian of the treaties, that freedom of circulation and non-discrimination were part of the European values,” she said. “I notice that certain values are more important than others and that in economic matters when the free circulation of goods and capital is concerned, competition barriers the Commission is prompter to condemn,” added Vergiat.

Arabs Not Allowed because they aren’t Jewish; What if they were Muslim?

How poignant is the above Photo? It wasn’t long ago that such signs were strewn across the USA, but those with historical amnesia seem to forget it ever existed.

Even more egregious,  Jewish extremists in Israel are now inflicting a similar decrepit form of racist and religious discrimination. What if it were Muslims saying “this is a Muslim only neighborhood, no Jews allowed?” Or if this had happened in an area of Cairo?

You can be sure that Robert Spencer and company would be chirping about it day and night.

Arab tenants forced to leave Tel Aviv home due to threats

(YNet)

Four Muslims and a Druze man were compelled to leave an apartment they had rented in southern Tel Aviv due to neighbors’ scheming against them, Ynet has learned. They claim that residents of the neighborhood threatened to torch the apartment and attack the landlord if the tenants were not evicted.

“Residents said aloud that they didn’t want to see Arabs in the neighborhood, because it’s for Jews alone,” one of the tenants said. (Hassan Shaalan)