Top Menu

Yossi Gurvitz: IDF Colonel-Rabbi Implies Rape is Permitted in War

Rabbi_Colonel_Eyal_Karim

Rabbi Colonel Eyal Karim

Israeli journalist Yossi Gurvitz describes himself as a former Orthodox Jew who claims to have seen the “light” and turned atheist at the age of 17. We are unfamiliar with his work but received this tip from a reader regarding one of his recent articles.

It is titled, IDF Colonel-rabbi implies: Rape is permitted in war. Colonel Eyal Qarim was questioned, (seemingly while not in uniform) about whether rape is permitted in war, and his answer implied that it was allowed.

Now I am unfamiliar with halacha or Jewish law, but my guess is it is a system as varied and expansive as Sharia’. Most likely you can find any opinion under the sun within halacha and so I am sure many will insist that the opinion proffered by the IDF Rabbi is not the only one, and is not the position of the IDF.

However, looking at the question and answer it exposes a troubling indication that an IDF Colonel Rabbi who was once being considered for the position of Chief Rabbi held the view that “rape is permitted in war.” More over it is not the first time that extremely problematic views have been expressed by influential IDF Rabbis.

It also brings us back to the question, “what if they were Muslim?”  If a prominent Muslim scholar had offered such an opinion one can be assured that it would be all over MEMRI.

Gurvitz omitted the whole question from the reader to the Rabbi, but we provide an approximate translation via. Google for context:

There have been various wars between nations, such as the First World War, for example, different nations fought each other, and no one was particularly good for the Jews or bad for the Jews…

But if they had captured a village and there were Jews and Jewish girls were raped, it is considered, rightly, a disaster and tragedy to the girl and family.

If yes, rape in war is considered a shocker. How, then was I told that a long, beautiful woman is allowed, according to some authorities, even before the process described in the Torah, I mean, surrender and lay with it created, and only then take her home, etc.?

This seems contradictory. After all, if rape is considered a civil war and not something shocking, why, apparently, Jews allowed?

Is it allowed in our days [sic] for an IDF soldier, for example, to rape girls during a fight, or is such a thing forbidden?

Now it’s very clear that the questioner is asking whether or not rape is allowed in war time. This is the answer that Rabbi Qarim gave (translation via. Gorvitz):

“The wars of Israel […] are mitzvah wars, in which they differ from the rest of the wars the nations wage among themselves. Since, essentially, a war is not an individual matter, but rather nations wage war as a whole, there are cases in which the personality of the individual is “erased” for the benefit of the whole. And vice versa: sometimes you risk a large unit for the saving of an individual, when it is essential for purposes of morale. One of the important and critical values during war is maintaining the army’s fighting ability […]

As in war the prohibition against risking your life is broken for the benefit of others, so are the prohibitions against immorality and of kashrut. Wine touched by gentiles, consumption of which is prohibited in peacetime, is allowed at war, to maintain the good spirit of the warriors. Consumption of prohibited foods is permitted at war (and some say, even when kosher food is available), to maintain the fitness of the warriors, even though they are prohibited during peacetime. Just so, war removes some of the prohibitions on sexual relations (gilui arayot in the original – YZG), and even though fraternizing with a gentile woman is a very serious matter, it was permitted during wartime (under the specific terms) out of understanding for the hardship endured by the warriors. And since the success of the whole at war is our goal, the Torah permitted the individual to satisfy the evil urge (yetzer ha’ra in the original  -YZG), under the conditions mentioned, for the purpose of the success of the whole.”

Gorvitz comments on this:

Wow. Herein lies a hornet’s nest. The first is that according to Qarim, the rape of female prisoners is not just permitted, it is also essential to war; the success of the whole at war relies on it.

….

Another problem is that Qarim invokes here the usual apologetics of those who speak of “Jewish morality”: he claims war is a conflict between nations, not individuals, and that the individual has no importance at war. The raped woman is not a woman, is not a person, has no feelings and if she feels pain it is unimportant: she is not a woman or a person, just an individual of an enemy tribe whose misfortune was to be captured. Furthermore, Qarim says that rape during wartime is immoral if carried out by a rival tribe – but all Jewish wars are, by definition, mitzvah wars. If the rape of the defenseless is part and parcel of “Jewish morality,” it’s not hard to reach the conclusion it is inferior to all modern morality systems. It is also worth noting (Hebrew) that “Jewish morality” is a by-product of German blood and iron romanticism.

Yet a third problem is that, essentially, Qarim says there is nothing which may be prohibited in war, if it is done “for the success of the whole.” We know that the killing of armed combatants is permitted (this is, after all, the essence of war), and we now learn that, for His Blessed Name, the rape of women is also permitted. Then we must ask ourselves whether it is also permitted, for the sake of victory, to also kill unarmed people. Children, for instance, who we have good reason to think may seek one day vengeance for the death of their fathers and brothers and the torturing of their mothers and sisters. The notorious book “Torat Ha’Melekh” answered in the affirmative; it would be interesting to know what Qarim thinks, and whether there is anything he thinks a Jewish soldier ought not to do for victory.

But the real problem here is that Eyal Qarim is an IDF colonel (Aluf Mishneh), and is a senior officer in the Military Rabbinate, i.e. is in a senior position in the IDF religious edicts apparatus. I’ve sent the following questions to the IDF Spokesman:

  1. Is the rape of women during wartime agreeable to the IDF Ethics Code?
  2. If not, why does a prominent military rabbi promote it?
  3. If not, does the IDF intend to end the service of Col. Qarim, or bring charges against him?
  4. How does the IDF Spokesman intend to deal with the anticipated damage to its image in the international arena, resulting from Col. Qarim’s ruling?

Frankly, I did not expect an answer, but surprisingly enough an enraged officer from IDF Spokesman New Media Unit called me. His official response was that Qarim was not an officer in active service when he wrote that ruling, and furthermore that my question “disrespects the IDF, the State of Israel and the Jewish religion,” and hence his unit will no longer answer my questions.

I told him that, as an Israeli citizen, I considered Col. Qarim to be a ticking time bomb, which will blow up in the IDF’s face should a soldier rape an enemy woman: it would automatically be seen as official policy. I told him this happened in the past. He vehemently denied it, and wouldn’t listen.

I think that the fact that Qarim was on hiatus at the time – earlier he was the religious officer of a crack unit, Sayeret Matkal (commando unit) – is unimportant. What is important is that the Military Rabbinate chose to re-call an officer who wrote such a ruling to active service. Qarim was briefly considered a candidate for the position of the Chief Military Rabbi. This is the face of the IDF in 2012, and this is the face of the rabbis it chooses to employ. There are certainly more humane rabbis than Qarim; yet somehow these are not the rabbis who are promoted.

, , , , , , , , , ,

    • syed ali

      This is disgusting.

    • Believing Atheist

      One more thing I wish to say is that this Rabbi has a messed up view of halakah.

      Rabbi S. Yisraeli stated that international conventions on what is permitted and forbidden in war are halakhically valid. Rape is forbidden by Geneva Convention. Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits wartime rape and enforced prostitution. These prohibitions were reinforced by the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

      @A&A,

      Btw, I think you misunderstand my views. I do not justify all of Israel’s actions. I for instance, oppose the occupation, oppose the blockade, oppose settlements, etc

      However, I just wanted to make it clear that the IDF seldom rapes Palestinians as the report states and this Rabbi is just a loon/extremist for implying what he implied.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      Words matter: A new language for peace Israel’s propaganda machine carefully chooses its words to assert illegal ownership over Jerusalem and Palestine.

      http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212991046211479.html

      Israel maintains only “administrative control” over Jerusalem – illustrated by the fact that embassies, even the US embassy, are in Tel Aviv – although the government assert they “possess” the city [GALLO/GETTY] The words which people use, often unconsciously, can have a critical impact upon the thoughts and attitudes of those who speak and write, as well as those who listen and read. Dangerously misleading terminology remains a major obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

      It is normal practice for parties to a dispute to use terminology which favours them. In this regard, Israel has been spectacularly successful in imposing its terminology not simply on Israeli consciousness and American usage but even on many Arab parties and commentators. It has done so not simply in obvious ways like use of the terms “terrorism”, “security”, “Eretz Israel” or “Judea and Samaria” but also in more subtle ways which have had and continue to have a profound negative impact on perceptions of legal realities and other matters of substance.

      The current initiative by Palestine to upgrade its status at the United Nations from “observer entity” to member state or, temporarily failing that, “observer state” is commonly referred to, by both supporters and opponents of this initiative, as an effort to “achieve statehood” or “recognition of statehood” through the United Nations. It is nothing of the sort.

      The State of Palestine already exists in accordance with the relevant principles of international law. It meets all the conditions for sovereign statehood set forth in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, and more than two-thirds of the 193 member states of the United Nations, including 16 of the world’s 20 most populous states, now recognise the State of Palestine as a sovereign state.

      The State of Palestine has simply been under the occupation of another state for more than 44 years, as Kuwait was, without ceasing to exist, for seven months two decades ago.

      ‘Ending the occupation’

      Palestine’s UN initiative seeks to level the legal and diplomatic playing field and, thereby, to enhance the chances of finally negotiating an end to the occupation. The issue and objective are not “achieving statehood” or recognition thereof, which can only be accorded individually by other states, but “ending the occupation”. With the expiration on January 26 of a three-month diplomatic “freeze” consented at the request of the Quartet, this last-chance effort to save a “two-state solution”, if it can be saved, should resume soon.

      In this context, journalists who refer to all or parts of occupied Palestine as “lands which the Palestinians want for their future state” are, consciously or unconsciously, siding with the mostly Western minority which views Palestine as an aspiration rather than as a state under occupation. More shockingly, even some high Palestinian officials still refer thoughtlessly to “our future state”. Both under international law and in the eyes of most of the world’s other states, Palestine is not a “future state” but an existing state under occupation by another state.

      “Israel can no more ‘cede’ title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied.”

      Commentators on all sides speak of Israel’s “ceding” territory occupied in 1967 to the Palestinians. The word suggests a transfer of land by its legitimate owner. Unless there are reciprocal exchanges of territory in a final peace agreement, the issue of Israel’s “ceding” territory to Palestine does not arise. Israel can withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory, but to “cede” property one must first possess legal title to it.

      Israel can no more cede title to occupied Palestinian lands than a squatter can cede title to an apartment which he has illegally occupied. In reality, it is Israel which continues to insist that Palestine cede to Israel indisputably Palestinian lands forming part of the meager 22 per cent remnant of historical Palestine which Israel did not conquer until 1967.

      There is also much talk of “concessions” – “painful”, “far-reaching” or otherwise – being demanded from Israel. The word suggests the surrender of some legitimate right or position. In fact, while Israel demands numerous concessions from Palestine, Palestine is not seeking any concessions from Israel. What it has long insisted upon is “compliance” – compliance with agreements already signed, compliance with international law and compliance with relevant United Nations resolutions – nothing more and nothing less.

      No “concessions”, only “compliance”

      Compliance is not a concession. It is an obligation, both legally and morally, and it is essential if peace is ever to be achieved.

      The Palestinian territories conquered by Israel in 1967 are still frequently referred to as “disputed”. They are not. They are “occupied” – and illegally so, since the status of “perpetual belligerent occupation” which Israel has been seeking to impose since 1967 does not exist in international law. While sovereignty over expanded East Jerusalem, which Israel has formally annexed, is explicitly contested, no other state has recognised Israel’s sovereignty claim and Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank is, in both literal and legal senses, uncontested.

      Israel has never even purported to annex these territories, knowing that doing so would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack of them) of the indigenous population living there. Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in favour of the Palestinians in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it.

      “Israelis have come to believe that Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not. It possesses only administrative control.”

      Since November 15, 1988, when Palestinian independence and statehood were formally proclaimed, the only state asserting sovereignty over those portions of historical Palestine which Israel occupied in 1967 (aside from expanded East Jerusalem) has been the State of Palestine.

      Misleading language has been particularly destructive with respect to Jerusalem. For years, Israeli politicians have repeated like a mantra that “Jerusalem must remain united under Israeli sovereignty”. Understandably, Israelis have come to believe that Israel currently possesses sovereignty over Jerusalem. It does not. It possesses only administrative control. While a country can acquire administrative control by force of arms, it can acquire sovereignty (the state-level equivalent of title or ownership) only with the consent of the international community.

      Israel does not “possess” Jerusalem

      The position of the international community regarding Jerusalem, which the 1947 UN partition plan envisioned as an internationally administered city legally separate from the two contemplated states, is clear and categorical: Israel is in belligerent occupation of East Jerusalem and has only de facto authority over West Jerusalem.

      The refusal of the international community (even including the United States) to recognise West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, evidenced by the maintenance of all embassies accredited to Israel in Tel Aviv, vividly demonstrates the refusal of the international community, pending an agreed solution to the status of Jerusalem, to concede that any part of the city is Israel’s sovereign territory.

      There can be no question of Israel relinquishing or transferring sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem for the simple reason that Israel currently possesses no such sovereignty. Indeed, the only ways that Israel might ever acquire sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem are by agreeing with Palestine on a fair basis for either sharing or dividing sovereignty over the city (or doing a bit of both) which is recognised as fair and accepted by the international community or by agreeing with the Palestinians to transform all of historical Palestine into a single, fully democratic state with equal rights for all who live there, in which case the Jerusalem conundrum, as well as most of the other perennial roadblocks to peace intrinsic to any potential “two-state solution”, would cease to pose any problem.

      This legal reality is of fundamental intellectual and psychological importance for Israeli public opinion. There is a world of difference for an Israeli leader between being perceived as the person who achieved Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem for the first time in 2,000 years and being perceived as the person who relinquished some measure of Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem. It could be a life-or-death distinction.

      “Justice” in the peace process

      One word which has been too rarely used in connection with the “peace process” (and which should be invoked more often) is “justice”. For obvious reasons, it is never used by Israeli or American politicians as a component of the “peace” which they envision. Yet a true and lasting “peace”, as opposed to a mere temporary cessation of hostilities, is inconceivable unless some measure of justice is both achieved and perceived, by both sides, to have been achieved.

      It is high time for all involved to recognise and speak clearly about these fundamental realities. The clarity of thought necessary to achieve either a decent two-state solution or a democratic one-state solution would be greatly enhanced by clarity of language, by taking care to use terminology which both reflects reality and facilitates, rather than hinders, the achievement of both peace and some measure of justice.

      Source: Aljazeera English News

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Geji,

      I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    • Aspie and Atheist

      @Believing Atheist,

      How are jews being dehumanized. And sorry to tell you, but it is a fact that Israeli soldiers and settlers murder Palestinians almost on a daily basis.

      I’d like to ask a question- who are you? Why do you keep defending and justifying Israeli policies?

Robert Spencer Fail: Tries to Use Death of Pope Shenouda III to Promote Sectarianism and Islamophobia

JihadWatch’s anti-Muslim fear-mongering director Robert Spencer likes to selectively highlight the most egregious and sectarian statements by Muslims to further his hate agenda against Islam/Muslims.

In the wake of the death of the Coptic Pope Shenouda III he posted a piece about how a cleric named Wagdi Ghoneim said that the death of Pope Shenouda was a “relief” because the Pope caused “sectarian strife” and sought to make Egypt into a “Coptic state.”

To address that specifically, I wonder if the irony is lost on Wagdi Ghoneim, he accused Pope Shenouda of having furthered “sectarian strife” but by writing what he did he himself engaged in “sectarian strife.”

While there are small fringe groups of Copts who wish to turn Egypt into a Coptic state, trying to push this concept as emerging from the Pope, or the mainstream of Copts is similar to the “Islamization” myth that ironically Spencer and his acolytes regularly engage in. The Pope himself was a nationalist and opposed “foreign intervention” and stated that while Copts are “marginalized” in Egypt they are not “oppressed.”

That said, the main point I want to highlight is the fact that Robert Spencer is attempting to shift focus from the overwhelming support and expressions of condolences and grief from Muslims for the passing of the Pope. He chooses one cleric and tries to attribute it as the general feeling of Muslim Egyptians.

This couldn’t be further from the truth.

High ranking Muslim politicians, scholars, clerics, intellectuals and lay people expressed their sympathy and sadness at his passing.

“His holiness lived and died as a loyal patriot to his country,” Parliament Speaker Saad el-Katatni, an Islamist, told a joint meeting of the two chambers of parliament Saturday.

Sheikh Ahmed El-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, the highest seat of religious learning in the Sunni world, offered his condolences to the Egyptian people for such a great loss, saying,

“Egypt has lost one of its rare men at a sensitive moment when it most needs the wisest of its wise – their expertise and their purity of minds.”

Egypt Mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa also mourned the deceased pontiff as a great Egyptian and patriot, saying,

“His death is a tragedy and a great loss for Egypt and its people of Muslims and Christians.”

Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm and the party with the largest majority in parliament stated,

“The Freedom and Justice Party sends its deepest condolences to the Egyptian people and our Christian brothers over the death of Pope Shenouda III,” FJP leader Mohamed Mursi said.

Presidential contenders such as Amr Moussa and Ahmed Shafiq also expressed their sadness,

Presidential aspirant Amr Moussa said he was saddened by Pope Shenouda’s death.

“We have lost a great value and a pre-eminent pope,” said Ahmed Shafiq, another presidential contender, and a Mubarak-era prime minister.

For more see: Egypt Muslims Mourn Pope Shenouda’s Passing

Here is a picture of Egyptian Christians expressing their thanks and reciprocating the “love” they received at the death of their leader:

Pope_Shenouda_Muslim_Christian_Unity

Egyptian Christians stand in front of a picture of the late Pope Shenouda III after receiving condolences from both Muslims and Christians. Signs read in Arabic (H/T: ZH): “We feel your love. Thank you, Muslim brothers and sisters”

, , , , , , , , ,

    • dominicdecocco

      @Pat Condell

      Mr. Condell has proven through his Vlogs that he is incompetent at thinking. The major crises that are effecting the UK are related to horrendous socio-economic management of which Muslims are not the problem: we have not caused unemployment and saturated education system nor did we cause the recession!

      If Condell gave a damn about the UK and the rest of the world, he would advocate on tackling these issues not non-existent threats that Muslims are trying to takeover the world.

    • Just Stopping By

      @CriticalDragon1177 and @Solid Snake:

      I believe that you are misreading Pat Condell. He states, “I[‘]m glad that this site exists, [as it] is proof of what [re]tards the Islamophobia industry are [sic]” meaning that he believes that those in what he would call the industry of exploiting Islamophobia are mentally deficient. (Compare to Finkelstein’s “Holocaust industry” as a group said to exploit something real and negative.)

      I don’t know Mr. Condell’s comedy, but I wonder if it is as difficult to parse as his comment above. To be a good comedian, one should be a wit. Based on the clarity of his writing here, Mr. Condell may be only half that.

    • Solid Snake

      @Pat Condell

      Not sure if sarcasm or change of heart…what’ll it be Mr. Comedian?

    • Pat Condell

      Im glad this site exists, proof of what tards the Islamophobia industry are.

    • Géji

      @Arab Atheist Says: atheism “cult”?

      Come on Arab Atheist, when did atheists become overly sensitive as religious nuts tend to get?? would it be that maybe after-all Atheism is just “the new” religion on the block? — But anyway, I do see Atheism as a cult, just like I do see religions are themselves. Don’t take it the wrong way, I certainly did not mean as “insulting” way or anything, I know the word “cult” often get a bad reputation and a negative connotation, but there is also a neutral definition of the word, that state any ideology that cultivates it’s own “Believe” system, including of course Islam, can be called a cult, and it doesn’t necessarily mean in negative sense, of course others may disagree with me on this, but that’s how I see it.

      > “To me, my religion, to you, yours”

      For sure Arab Atheist, for sure, and I never suggested otherwise in my previous post, peace be with you brother.

    • Arab Atheist – ملحد عربي

      @Géji atheism “cult”? لكم دينكم ولي دين To me, my religion, to you, yours

    • Géji

      It’s funny how the Christian nuts like Spencer always see Islam as the ‘big threat’ to their ideology and the one that most likely ‘convert’ Christians, not realizing it is actually the atheism cult that has done far more damage to Christianity in taking big junks out of European Christians to make it it’s own. Aren’t like half of Europe secular atheists?

    • @Emperor,

      Actually come to think of it, the man has been betraying those principals since day one of his bigoted crusade.

    • @Emperor

      I’m so glad I now see Spencer and his ilk for what they really are. Spencer betrays the very principals he claims to hold dear by doing this.

    • Zakariya Ali Sher

      I doubt Spencer wants a Coptic state in Egypt. Yes, he is a Christian nut, but he is also a decidedly sectarian one. I don’t see him recognizing (or respecting) the sanctity of the Coptic Pope’s title. He wants to bring everyone into communion with Rome, with the Roman Pope as first among equals. While Spencer may try to portray himself as sympathetic towards Copts and Assyrians, it is only because they are surrounding by a Muslim minority. You’ll notice he doesn’t go around supporting the Russian, Bulgarian or Finnish Orthodox Churches. Indeed, his cohorts and counterparts in Europe seem to be anti-Slavic immigration as well.

    • crow

      I’m tired of Spencer and the white trash that post on his site. It makes me sick when I see the violent garbage they post while claiming to be “Christian” or talk proudly about teaching their family to hate Muslims.

    • Abdul-Rahman

      Spencer is a lying, hatemonger of course. The vast majority of Egyptians of all backgrounds have always promoted inter-religious harmony in Egypt. That is why after the Coptic church was bombed in January 2011 in Alexandria there were huge mourning rallies of Egyptian Muslims condemning the bombing and standing with their Coptic brothers and sisters (often holding banners with the Crescent and Cross intertwined). It was also widely reported that many Egyptian Muslims then volunteered to act as “human shields” at different Coptic churches throughout Egypt as a symbol of unity, and many of these volunteer “human shields” were Egyptian Islamic scholars and religious students from the Muslim al-Azhar University in Cairo.

    • Garibaldi

      @Cloud, you are correct he has said as much, he fears Islam as a threat to his faith:

      “Islam itself is an incomplete, misleading, and often downright false revelation which, in many ways, directly contradicts what God has revealed through the prophets of the Old Testament and through his Son Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh… For several reasons… Islam constitutes a threat to the world at large.” [5]

      “We wanted Catholics to become informed about Islam because not only is Islam the church’s chief rival in terms of religion but Islam is a serious threat to the peace and well-being of the Western world in general,” [6]

      http://spencerwatch.com/spenceritis/

      I agree he does want to see a Coptic state in Egypt as surely as he wants to see a Christian state in the US.

    • cloud

      Robert Spencer would love to see a Coptic state in Egypt, I’m sure he would also love to see a Christian state here in the U.S, people forget that apart from being an Islamophobe he’s also a religious nut. He tries to hide his pro Christian bias by saying things such as Islam is anti-freedom, anti-human rights, anti-women etc. but the real reason is that in his mind he feels that Islam is a threat to his own religious belief, but he knows that if he frames his argument around that no one would take him seriously. At the end of the day Robert Spencer and his silly views are irrelevant and as one academic put it. they will end up in the dustbin of history.

    • Al

      Silly Spencer…

    • Garibaldi

      Good point @Just Stopping By.

    • mindy1

      RIP sir, and may peace reign in Egypt

    • Just Stopping By

      “I wonder if the irony is lost on Wagdi Ghoneim,…”

      Actually, the real irony is that Spencer is having a fit that someone is accusing a minority religous group of trying to take over a country and remake it in its image. It would be nice to think that Spencer now sees how wrong such accusations are, but I won’t hold my breath.

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.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    • Just Stopping By

      @Believing Atheist says, “This will be my last and final comment on LW.” No!!!

      “last and final”? You can’t leave on such a redundant comment!

    • Believing Atheist

      I hope LW publishes this new article exposing Geert Wilders by Radio Netherlands:

      It’s not every day that a member of parliament decides to leave his or her party and go it alone. So Hero Brinkman’s defection from the Freedom Party was bound to make news.

      Yet, this defection is more newsworthy than most. For one thing, it removes the parliamentary majority that the current coalition held in the lower house. The two parties forming the minority coalition, the VVD and CDA, depend on support from the Freedom Party (PVV) in parliament. Together, the three parties had 76 seats. With one now gone, they control just half the lower house.

      Prime Minister Mark Rutte might take solace in the fact that the opposition does not firmly control the rest of the seats either. He already has the tacit support of the two-seat right-wing religious SGP party. Moreover, Brinkman has promised to continue to support “the best government this country has ever had”. Still, Brinkman’s defection is a bombshell for the PVV.

      Wilders is the party; the party is Wilders Discipline is the PVV’s mantra. Geert Wilders runs an extremely tight ship and with good reason. After all, the PVV was the second right-wing populist party to emerge in 21st-century Dutch politics. The first, List Pim Fortuyn, captured 26 seats at its first parliamentary election, joined a coalition government and then fell apart in an avalanche of petty bickering.

      Wilders, himself a VVD defector, knew he did not want to create something new only to see it disappear in a similar fashion. Everything about the PVV guards against revealing even the slightest hint of chaos. It is not a political party in the traditional sense. With just one member – Wilders himself – the PVV holds no conferences. Wilders delegates only to a handful of trusted colleagues, who are anyway limited in what they can do on their own.

      First chink in the armour Brinkman’s defection is the first major chink in this armour of rock-solid discipline. Until now, he has remained loyal even after voicing criticism. Brinkman came out publicly against one-man rule a few years ago, when he called for more democracy within the party. Though rebuffed, he pursued efforts to start a youth movement. Even after that project was reigned in, Brinkman stuck by Wilders. Until now, that is. Brinkman is not only the first PVV MP to defect (a number of provincial politicians have left). He comes from the core group that began with Wilders in 2005. He was also one of the most visible MPs.

      Core group The damage to Wilders goes beyond a dent in the public image of an extremely disciplined party. Wilders loses a colleague who dared to talk back. PVV MPs say their meetings are free-flowing exchanges of information. But, given Wilders’ autocratic control, it is hard to imagine all MPs feel free to express their opinions. Brinkman claims he was comfortable standing up to Wilders. In the long run, the party leader may end up missing his opinionated feedback.

      Secrets exposed Now Brinkman is sharing his opinions with the outside world. Less than 12 hours after announcing his defection, Brinkman indicated that the PVV receives substantial amounts of money from ‘US lobby firms’. This was long suspected, but has yet to be proven. The party is under no legal requirement to divulge its sources of funds.

      Brinkman also accused his former party of political opportunism, stigmatising groups such as Muslims and Eastern Europeans for political gain. The controversial PVV website for registering complaints about Eastern Europeans was not well thought-out, he said, particularly from a group wanting to be seen as a responsible, governing party.

      More criticism to come? Brinkman is by no means finished criticising his former party. He has announced that he is writing a book about the PVV.

      Only once before, in its nearly seven years of existence, has the PVV had to deal with an insider revealing its inner workings. Towards the end of 2009, a journalist published a series of diary entries based on her experience working undercover in parliament for the PVV. The damage was primarily personal and psychological – nothing close to what a confidant could reveal in a kiss-and-tell memoir.

      So, besides Brinkman, are there others? For now, he appears to be alone. He was the only PVV MP who openly called for more democracy in the party. All accounts of his last weeks indicate he had little support in the caucus, but claims support from a few of his former colleagues. They just don’t dare to speak out. What effect will his example have on the others?

      A vulnerable time Brinkman’s defection comes at a vulnerable time for Wilders. He is involved in intense negotiations about a new round of austerity measures, measures he himself does not want and which will be unpopular with his constituents. He has now lost his strongest bargaining chip – pulling out of the governing construction and taking the country to the polls. With a party weakened by defection, Wilders may now be stuck with whatever he can get at the negotiations. http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/first-chink-geert-wilders%E2%80%99-armour

      This will be my last and final comment on LW. Thank you LW for tolerating me and posting many of my comments on your blog. Forgive me for any of my transgressions and I wish you the best of luck in combating bigotry and anti-Muslim sentiment.

    • Benjamin Taghiov

      Muslims face most racism in Sweden

      Muslims are exposed to the most racial harassment in Sweden, according to a new report from the Board of Integration.

      Seven out of ten reports of ethnic discrimination came from people with a Muslim background, and almost 40% of those questioned in the survey said they had witnessed verbal abuse directed at Muslims.

      The report, Racism and Xenophobia in Sweden, also showed an increasing intolerance of immigration.

      “If you look at the whole period from 1999 to 2004 there has been a significant increase in the number of people who want to close Sweden’s borders to immigration, from 35% to 45.5%,” said the report’s author, José Alberto Diaz.

      But the picture painted by the report is complex. While one in five respondents said that they were “negatively inclined towards people who they did not consider belonged in Sweden”, the support for anti-immigration political parties, such as the Sweden Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna) and the National Democrats (Nationaldemokraterna) is declining.

      One in four said they could consider voting for such a party, down from almost one in three in 1999.

      Two thirds of those questioned rejected the notion that Sweden is a racist country, and fewer people then five years ago believe that racism is increasing. In 1999, 56% said they believed racism was rising, but by 2004 this had decreased to 46%.

      http://www.thelocal.se/2363/20051025/

      ______________

      Sweden’s Jews, Muslims face web hate rise: study

      The number of xenophobic web sites have almost doubled since 2007 and Jews and Muslims wearing apparent religious symbols are subjected to significant discrimination in Sweden today, according to a new report from the Living History Forum (Forum för levande historia).

      “Sweden as a whole is a tolerant country but this report shows that racism is growing and is being professionalized on the internet. There is today a small but growing minority that harbour hatred against Muslims and Jews,” minister for integration, Erik Ullenhag, wrote in a statement on Monday.

      The report, which was requested by the government and carried out by the Forum, also shows that an increased number of racist web pages have been created in recent years and that prejudice is being spread through schoolbooks.

      According to the report, the number of racist sites in Sweden has almost doubled in two years. In 2009 there were around 8,000 xenophobic Swedish sites whereas today the authors of the report estimate an increase to 15,000.

      This follows a EU-wide trend where right wing extremist groups are using the internet to spread hate-propaganda.

      According to the report, these are characterized by anti-Semitic and Islamophobic views, where conspiracy theories are the most recurring elements.

      The Jewish group is often cast as world conspirators whereas the Muslim group is seen as physical occupiers, actively are on their way to taking over society through mass-immigration and rising nativity figures.

      The Jewish community in Sweden consists of some 20,000 individuals and the Muslim community of 300,000. Fresh crime statistics show that there were 161 reports of crimes with anti-Semitic motives and 272 with Islamophobic motives last year.

      But according to the Forum it is difficult to get a fair idea of the situation from these statistics as they are based on police reports and the authors believe there may be many more unrecorded cases.

      “Above all this study shows that research and follow-ups into preventative actions regarding intolerance against Jews and Muslims is sorely needed,” said head of Forum for Living History, Eskil Franck, in a statement.

      According to Ullenhag, Swedish authorities must further their knowledge about what causes the hate against these groups to grow in Sweden and how they should meet it. That, he said, is the aim behind the investigation regarding xenophobia that the government launched earlier this spring.

      “We have learnt from experiences in other European countries that all the forces who want a tolerant society need to be active in the public debate. Prejudice against Jews and Muslims can never be normalized,” said Ullenhag.

      When American research centre Pew recently investigated the development of religious conflicts and oppression worldwide between 2006 and 2009, Sweden distinguished itself as a country where hostilities related to religion are increasing the most.

      http://www.thelocal.se/35692/20110822/

    • dude

      You are fully right but it would be appreciated if things are not being fueled. The situation in Holland is tensed and a lot of foreigners are not safe here anymore…and in this regard you can think of absolutely anything, the range is wide. If things will be fueled, those people will be put in danger because the Dutch lost the control over the situation.

    • Eslaporte

      thank you for your link to the meldpuntpw. I have now started a campaign in my own country to ban yellow hair dye. It helps disguise identity and seems to make people crazy, adopting as they do, aryan type superiority complexes.

      I have begun to see my shrink since I think that I am beginning to suffer from yellowdyeophobia. http://oskarfreysingerwatch.blogspot.com/

    • @JD I live near the mosque of the Islamic Society of Southeastern Wisconsin. It has been their since the 1980s and nobody has trouble with it…

      I knew that the Netherlands would make trouble in the EU eventually. It’s rather sad. The country used to be a champion of human rights in the world. The country used to stand for international justice. Now – its foreign policy is based crafted on “clash” thesis, which will led to conflicts and wars.

      The Dutch were led to believe that “Pim and Theo” were heroes by being loud and obnoxious in the hate of their own country, as well as minorities. The Dutch tradition of tolerance was admired in the world. The country now hate foreigners, all foreigners.

      What is really funny is that foreigners built the Netherlands and the Low Countries.

      The reason why this has not be condemned by other political parties is that in the Dutch political system one party does not condemn the actions of another party. This is to not step on toes so that one’s own party can be included in a future governing coalition or consideration of policy proposals in the Tweede Kamer. This is part of the reason why the Islamization myths go unchallenged.

      Well – there is a Meldpunt PVV – http://meldpuntpvv.nl/

    • Christian-friend

      I see in the future….Greet Wilders blaming the country’s woes on anyone who isn’t blue eye and white, then shaking hands with a Neo-Nazi officer and praising Hitler!

    • Aspie and Atheist

      How about “live and let live.” Guess what, Muslims in the west are not trying to impose their views on anyone, they are just trying to live their lives according to their principles. But Europeans don’t want to see them, they don’t want any visibility of anything other than themselves. Europeans need to get over their superiority complex and face the horrors of their racism and colonial past, and realize that they’re no better than anybody else. Then maybe they could appreciate diversity instead of fearing it.

    • Yep! You were right. Bigots rarely are one stop bigots.

    • Of course the south dakota bill is unconstitutional JD and I must agree with you. The law is so patently silly that it will surely not last. I refer of course to Hosanna Tabor that the Supreme Court of the USA decided just last month.

      Courts will enforce provisions of religious codes if these relate to the governance of the religion. For example, the hiring of clergy as clergy will not be determined by fair employment practices.

    • Garibaldi

      I’m not too surprised about South Dakota to say the least.

      Thanks Khusboo, we’ll have to post this.

    • here is an interesting site that shows Geert Wielders:

      first as a long haired creepy brown haired and eyed loon,

      second as a brown eyed regular guy loon

      third to his latest incarnation as a blond blued eyed perfect aryan man loon.

      http://oskarfreysingerwatch.blogspot.com/

    • khushboo

      BREAKING NEWS EMPEROR:

      Did you know that last week history was made in Florida? The anti-Sharia bill that was supposed to become law died in the Florida Senate after passing in the Florida House by a vote of 92 to 24.

      Now the lawmakers who helped kill the bill are under attack by anti-Muslim hate groups. Can you take 30-seconds to thank those Florida Lawmakers who did the right thing?

      I just used the website

      http://stopsb1360.org to send an email to Thank the lawmakers who helped stop this bad law. It was really easy and it TOOK ME LESS THAN 30 SECONDS

      http://action.unitedvoices.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9953

    • mindy1

      @South Dakota?? Really, this is what they focus on??

    • Sam

      Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules, but they won’t be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under the requirements of someone’s religious beliefs

      Hilarious!!!

    • NurAlia

      So…flipping a coin to settle a dispute if the parties agree is illegal now?

    • JD

      South Dakota Governor Signs Unconstitutional Anti-Muslim Bill

      http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/13/443666/south-dakota-governor-signs-unconstitutional-anti-muslim-bill/?mobile=nc

      Yesterday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R) signed an unconstitutional law that purports to target courts applying religious law, but which is almost certainly part of a broader push by Islamophobic advocates to fight the imaginary problem of courts substituting Islamic law for American law. The brief bill Daugaard signed provides simply that “[n]o court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

      Although this bill does not specifically call out any particular religion for ill treatment, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. As the Supreme Court explained in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, “the protections of the Free Exercise Clause pertain if the law at issue discriminates against some or all religious beliefs or regulates or prohibits conduct because it is undertaken for religious reasons.”

      While it is uncommon for American courts to apply religious law, it is not unheard of. Private parties sometimes enter into contracts where they agree to resolve their disputes under something other than U.S. law, and individuals sometimes write wills devising their property according to the tenets of their faith. Under the bill Daugaard signed, however, courts will be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under French law or ancient Roman law or under the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons second edition rules, but they won’t be allowed to enforce contracts requiring disputes to be resolved under the requirements of someone’s religious beliefs. This is discrimination “against some or all religious beliefs,” and is therefore unconstitutional.

    • JD

      Opponents of Proposed Mosque Clash with Islamic Society Organizers

      http://brookfield-wi.patch.com/articles/opponents-of-proposed-mosque-clash-with-islamic-society-organizers

      Fears that a mosque would bring religious extremists, and even ties to terrorism, surfaced Tuesday when leaders of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee arrived at an Eagle Forum meeting meant to rally Brookfield residents against the proposal.

      After the president and executive director of the society introduced themselves, the meeting at the Brookfield Library turned to debate, focused first on traffic concerns, but soon moving to attacks on the religion of Islam.

      “My fear is what is being taught there,” said a woman who did not want to give her name.

      “Our God is not your God,” one man said.

      “What is it about your religion that draws so much extremism and hatred?” another asked.

      Islamic Society of Milwaukee President Ahmad Quereshi and Executive Director Othman Atta answered their questions, alongside three members of the Brookfield-Elm Grove Interfaith Network.

      “You are our brothers and sisters of humanity,” Quereshi said. “We are not the people advocating for hatred and violence. We’re here as American citizens.”

      About 40 people showed up for the meeting, which forced the group outside into a standing circle where Janet Spiewak, president of the Eagle Forum of Wisconsin, first addressed them.

      She advised the group to leave religion out of their arguments and focus on the construction of the building and traffic it would bring. Aldermen also have warned opponents to stick to non-religious concerns.

      “We’re not fighting against a religion,” Spiewak said. “Concentrate on the traffic and zoning issues.”

      The Eagle Forum of Wisconsin’s website includes as part of its mission: “We must also be vigilant against external threats from rogue nations and radical Islamists.”

      Spiewak urged those present to voice their concerns to their aldermen.

      “Make yourselves heard,” she said. “You have 14 aldermen and a mayor who want to slip something past.”

      The Islamic Society of Milwaukee already owns the land at 16650 and 16730 W. Pheasant Dr., which is northeast of the intersection of Calhoun Road and North Avenue. But they still have several hurdles to pass before moving forward.

      After a public hearing tentatively scheduled for May 7, the plans will go before the Plan Commission for discussion and possible action on a required conditional use permit. If approved there, it will go to the full Common Council.

    • mindy1

      A hater who hates what a shocker/sarcasm

    • @Emperor

      I hope at least one of his supporters has found out about that website and what he has said earlier and maybe for the first time started to question everything Wilders was telling him. Maybe if he does not share his anti Eastern European views, it will lead him to doubt that he is as wise as he is made out to be. That might lead him to eventually reject Wilder’s bigotted views when it comes to Muslims.

March 10, 1906 Meets March 11, 2012: Infamous Days in US Army Massacres

philippines-massacre-morro-bud-dajo-crater-massacre-1906

Moro Crater Massacre Victims

History has a horrifically persistent way of repeating itself, almost 106 years ago to the date US soldiers massacred more than 600 mostly unarmed Muslim Moro villagers in the Phillipines. Today we hear news of the bloody massacre carried out by an Army Staff Sergeant in Afghanistan, killing 16 civilians, mostly women and children as they slept in their homes.

I provide a Wiki article below about the Moro Massacre, it might not be the best citation but the article below is accurate:

Moro Crater massacre

(Wikipilipinas)

The Moro Crater massacre is a name given to the final phase of the First Battle of Bud Dajo, a military engagement of the Philippine-American War which took place March 10, 1906], on the isle of Jolo in the southern Philippines. Forces of the U.S. Army under the command of Major General Leonard Wood, a naval detachment comprising 540 soldiers, along with a detachment of native constabulary, armed with artillery and small firearms, attacked a village hidden in the crater of the dormant volcano Bud Dajo. No American soldiers were killed, though sixteen were wounded; more than 600 mostly unarmedMuslim Moro villagers were killed, but none wounded.

Mark Twain’s indignation

The Filipinos were not yet defeated on July 4 1902, when Theodore_Roosevelt|President Roosevelt declared that the war was over. The Muslim Filipinos, or Muslim Filipino|Moros, in the Southern Philippines were as tenacious in opposing U.S. colonization, as they were in resisting Spanish rule during the preceding three centuries. But those whose slaughter is described below were not a military group.

Mark Twain must have felt strongly compelled to comment on the massacre. It provided another opportunity to condemn the brutality of the U.S troops, and Leonard Wood, already the subject of his scorn, was the commanding officer involved. In all of his writings about Wood, Mark Twain emphasized the irony that he was a medical Physician|doctor whose profession, as a soldier, was to kill people. This theme was developed here with references to the “doctor” who led the massacre, the “heroes” who performed it, and the “savages” who suffered it. The savagery was performed by the “heroes,” not the sympathetically-presented Moros, whose slaughtered children represented “our perfectest symbol of innocence and helplessness.”

The Anti-Imperialist League quickly published two leaflets about the massacre. A photograph [1] of the carnage that it distributed to the press in 1907 was later described as “the most hideous Philippine Picture . . . published in the United States during the subjugation of the islands.”

Mark Twain, however, thought that his own comments were too controversial to publish. They are from his autobiography, which was planned for publication after his death, so he could discuss his contemporaries without restraint. Later in 1906, while choosing sections of the autobiography for publication in the North American Review, he marked these dictations as “not usable yet”.

 Part 1: Monday, March 12, 1906

This incident burst upon the world last Friday in an official cablegram from the commander of our forces in the Philippines to our Government at Washington. The substance of it was as follows: A tribe of Moros, dark-skinned savages, had fortified themselves in the bowl of an extinct crater not many miles from Jolo; and as they were hostiles, and bitter against us because we have been trying for eight years to take their liberties away from them, their presence in that position was a menace. Our commander, Gen. Leonard Wood, ordered a reconnaissance. It was found that the Moros numbered six hundred, counting women and children; that their crater bowl was in the summit of a peak or mountain twenty-two hundred feet above sea level, and very difficult of access for Christian troops and artillery. Then General Wood ordered a surprise, and went along himself to see the order carried out. Our troops climbed the heights by devious and difficult trails, and even took some artillery with them. The kind of artillery is not specified, but in one place it was hoisted up a sharp acclivity by tackle a distance of some three hundred feet. Arrived at the rim of the crater, the battle began. Our soldiers numbered five hundred and forty. They were assisted by auxiliaries consisting of a detachment of native constabulary in our pay — their numbers not given — and by a naval detachment, whose numbers are not stated. But apparently the contending parties were about equal as to number — six hundred men on our side, on the edge of the bowl; six hundred men, women and children in the bottom of the bowl. Depth of the bowl, 50 feet.

Gen. Wood’s order was, “Kill or capture the six hundred.”

The battle began-it is officially called by that name-our forces firing down into the crater with their artillery and their deadly small arms of precision; the savages furiously returning the fire, probably with brickbats-though this is merely a surmise of mine, as the weapons used by the savages are not nominated in the cablegram. Heretofore the Moros have used knives and clubs mainly; also ineffectual trade-muskets when they had any. [page 172]

The official report stated that the battle was fought with prodigious energy on both sides during a day and a half, and that it ended with a complete victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory for the American arms. The completeness of the victory is established by this fact: that of the six hundred Moros not one was left alive. The brilliancy of the victory is established by this other fact, to wit: that of our six hundred heroes only fifteen lost their lives.

General Wood was present and looking on. His order had been. “Kill or capture those savages.” Apparently our little army considered that the “or” left them authorized to kill or capture according to taste, and that their taste had remained what it has been for eight years, in our army out there – the taste of Christian butchers.

The official report quite properly extolled and magnified the “heroism” and “gallantry” of our troops; lamented the loss of the fifteen who perished, and elaborated the wounds of thirty-two of our men who suffered injury, and even minutely and faithfully described the nature of the wounds, in the interest of future historians of the United States. It mentioned that a private had one of his elbows scraped by a missile, and the private’s name was mentioned. Another private had the end of his nose scraped by a missile. His name was also mentioned – by cable, at one dollar and fifty cents a word.

Next day’s news confirmed the previous day’s report and named our fifteen killed and thirty-two wounded again, and once more described the wounds and gilded them with the right adjectives.

Let us now consider two or three details of our military history. In one of the great battles of the Civil War ten per cent. Of the forces engaged on the two sides were killed and wounded. At Waterloo, where four hundred thousand men were present on the two sides, fifty thousand fell, killed and wounded, in five hours, leaving three hundred and fifty thousand sound and all right for further adventures. Eight years ago, when the pathetic comedy called the Cuban War was played, we summoned two hundred and fifty thousand men. We fought a number of showy battles, and when the war was over we had lost two hundred and sixty-eight men out of our two hundred and fifty thousand, in killed and wounded in the field, and just fourteen times as many by the gallantry of the army doctors in the hospitals and camps. We did not exterminate the Spaniards — far from it. In each engagement we left an average of two per cent. of the enemy killed or crippled on the field.

Contrast these things with the great statistics which have arrived from [page 172] that Moro crater! There, with six hundred engaged on each side, we lost fifteen men killed outright, and we had thirty-two wounded-counting that nose and that elbow. The enemy numbered six hundred — including women and children — and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States.

Now then, how has it been received? The splendid news appeared with splendid display-heads in every newspaper in this city of four million and thirteen thousand inhabitants, on Friday morning. But there was not a single reference to it in the editorial columns of any one of those newspapers. The news appeared again in all the evening papers of Friday, and again those papers were editorially silent upon our vast achievement. Next day’s additional statistics and particulars appeared in all the morning papers, and still without a line of editorial rejoicing or a mention of the matter in any way. These additions appeared in the evening papers of that same day (Saturday) and again without a word of comment. In the columns devoted to correspondence, in the morning and evening papers of Friday and Saturday, nobody said a word about the “battle.” Ordinarily those columns are teeming with the passions of the citizen; he lets no incident go by, whether it be large or small, without pouring out his praise or blame, his joy or his indignation about the matter in the correspondence column. But, as I have said, during those two days he was as silent as the editors themselves. So far as I can find out, there was only one person among our eighty millions who allowed himself the privilege of a public remark on this great occasion — that was the President of the United States. All day Friday he was as studiously silent as the rest. But on Saturday he recognized that his duty required him to say something, and he took his pen and performed that duty. If I know President Roosevelt — and I am sure I do — this utterance cost him more pain and shame than any other that ever issued from his pen or his mouth. I am far from blaming him. If I had been in his place my official duty would have compelled me to say what he said. It was a convention, an old tradition, and he had to be loyal to it. There was no help for it. This is what he said:

Washington, March 10. Wood, Manila:- I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the [page 173] brilliant feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag. (Signed) Theodore Roosevelt.

His whole utterance is merely a convention. Not a word of what he said came out of his heart. He knew perfectly well that to pen six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them in detail during a stretch of a day and a half, from a safe position on the heights above, was no brilliant feat of arms – and would not have been a brilliant feat of arms even if Christian America, represented by its salaried soldiers, had shot them down with Bibles and the Golden Rule instead of bullets. He knew perfectly well that our uniformed assassins had not upheld the honor of the American flag, but had done as they have been doing continuously for eight years in the Philippines – that is to say, they had dishonored it.

The next day, Sunday, — which was yesterday — the cable brought us additional news – still more splendid news — still more honor for the flag. The first display-head shouts this information at us in the stentorian capitals: “WOMEN SLAIN MORO SLAUGHTER.”

“Slaughter” is a good word. Certainly there is not a better one in the Unabridged Dictionary for this occasion.

The next display line says:

“With Children They Mixed in Mob in Crater, and All Died Together.”

They were mere naked savages, and yet there is a sort of pathos about it when that word children falls under your eye, for it always brings before us our perfectest symbol of innocence and helplessness; and by help of its deathless eloquence color, creed and nationality vanish away and we see only that they are children — merely children. And if they are frightened and crying and in trouble, our pity goes out to them by natural impulse. We see a picture. We see the small forms. We see the terrified faces. We see the tears. We see the small hands clinging in supplication to the mother; but we do not see those children that we are speaking about. We see in their places the little creatures whom we know and love.

The next heading blazes with American and Christian glory like to the sun in the zenith:

Death List is Now 900.”

I was never so enthusiastically proud of the flag till now! [page 174]

The next heading explains how safely our daring soldiers were located. It says:

“Impossible to Tell Sexes Apart in Fierce Battle on Top of Mount Dajo.”

The naked savages were so far away, down in the bottom of that trap, that our soldiers could not tell the breasts of a woman from the rudimentary paps of a man — so far away that they couldn’t tell a toddling little child from a black six-footer. This was by all odds the least dangerous battle that Christian soldiers of any nationality were ever engaged in.

The next heading says:

“Fighting for Four Days.”

So our men were at it four days instead of a day and a half. It was a long and happy picnic with nothing to do but sit in comfort and fire the Golden Rule into those people down there and imagine letters to write home to the admiring families, and pile glory upon glory. Those savages fighting for their liberties had the four days too, but it must have been a sorrowful time for them. Every day they saw two hundred and twenty- five of their number slain, and this provided them grief and mourning for the night — and doubtless without even the relief and consolation of knowing that in the meantime they had slain four of their enemies and wounded some more on the elbow and the nose.

The closing heading says:

“Lieutenant Johnson Blown from Parapet by Exploding Artillery Gallantly Leading Charge.”

Lieutenant Johnson has pervaded the cablegrams from the first. He and his wound have sparkled around through them like the serpentine thread of fire that goes excursioning through the black crisp fabric of a fragment of burnt paper. It reminds one of Gillette’s comedy farce of a few years ago, “Too Much Johnson.” Apparently Johnson was the only wounded man on our side whose wound was worth anything as an advertisement. It has made a great deal more noise in the world than has any similarly colossal event since “Humpty Dumpty” fell off the wall and got injured. The official dispatches do not know which to admire most, Johnson’s adorable wound or the nine hundred murders. The ecstasies flowing from Army Headquarters on the other side of the globe to the White House, at a dollar and a half a word, have set fire to similar ecstasies in the President’s breast. It appears that the immortally wounded was a Rough Rider under Lieutenant Colonel Roosevelt at San [page 175] Juan Hill — that extinguisher of Waterloo — when the Colonel of the regiment, the present Major General Dr. Leonard Wood, went to the rear to bring up the pills and missed the fight. The President has a warm place in his heart for anybody who was present at that bloody Collision of military solar systems, and so he lost no time in cabling to the wounded hero, “How are you?” And got a cable answer, “Fine, thanks.” This is historical. This will go down to posterity.

Johnson was wounded in the shoulder with a Slug. The slug was in a shell — for the account says the damage was caused by an exploding shell which blew Johnson off the rim. The people down in the hole had no artillery; therefore it was our artillery that blew Johnson off the rim. And so it is now a matter of historical record that the only officer of ours who acquired a wound of advertising dimensions got it at our hands, not the enemy’s. It seems more than probable that if we had placed our soldiers out of the way of our own weapons, we should have come out of the most extraordinary battle in all history without a scratch.

Part 2: Wednesday, March 14, 1906

The ominous paralysis continues. There has been a slight sprinkle — an exceedingly slight sprinkle — in the correspondence columns, of angry rebukes of the President for calling this cowardly massacre a “brilliant feat of arms,” and for praising our butchers for “holding up the honor of the flag” in that singular way; but there is hardly a ghost of a whisper about the feat of arms in the editorial columns of the papers.

I hope that this silence will continue. It is about as eloquent and as damaging and effective as the most indignant words could be, I think. When a man is sleeping in a noise, his sleep goes placidly on; but if the noise stops, the stillness wakes him. This silence has continued five days now. Surely it must be waking the drowsy nation. Surely the nation must be wondering what it means. A five-day silence following a world-astonishing event has not happened on this planet since the daily newspaper was invented.

At a luncheon party of men convened yesterday to God-speed George Harvey, who is leaving to-day for a vacation in Europe, all the talk was about the brilliant feat of arms; and no one had anything to say about it that either the President or Major General Dr. Wood, or the damaged Johnson, would regard as complimentary, or as proper comment to put into our histories. Harvey said he believed that the shock and shame of [page 176] this episode would eat down deeper and deeper into the hearts of the nation and fester there and produce results. He believed it would destroy the Republican party and President Roosevelt. I cannot believe that the prediction will come true, for the reason that prophecies which promise valuable things, desirable things, good things, worthy things, never come true. Prophecies of this kind are like wars fought in a good cause — they are so rare that they don’t count.

Day before yesterday the cable-note from the happy General Dr. Wood was still all glorious. There was still proud mention and elaboration of what was called the “desperate hand-to-hand fight.” — Doctor Wood not seeming to suspect that he was giving himself away, as the phrase goes — since if there was any very desperate hand-to-hand fighting it would necessarily happen that nine hundred hand-to-hand fighters, if really desperate, would surely be able to kill more than fifteen of our men before their last man and woman and child perished.

Very well, there was a new note in the dispatches yesterday afternoon — just a faint suggestion that Dr. Wood was getting ready to lower his tone and begin to apologize and explain. He announces that he assumes full responsibility for the fight. It indicates that he is aware that there is a lurking disposition here amidst all this silence to blame somebody. He says there was “no wanton destruction of women and children in the fight, though many of them were killed by force of necessity because the Moros used them as shields in the hand-to-hand fighting.”

This explanation is better than none; indeed it is considerably better than none. Yet if there was so much hand-to-hand fighting there must have arrived a time, toward the end of the four days’ butchery, when only one native was left alive. We had six hundred men present; we had lost only fifteen; why did the six hundred kill that remaining man — or woman, or child?

Dr. Wood will find that explaining things is not in his line. He will find that where a man has the proper spirit in him and the proper force at his command, it is easier to massacre nine hundred unarmed animals than it is to explain why he made it so remorselessly complete. Next he furnishes us this sudden burst of unconscious humor, which shows that he ought to edit his reports before he cables them:

“Many of the Moros feigned death and butchered the American hospital men who were relieving the wounded.”

We have the curious spectacle of hospital men going around trying to [page 177] relieve the wounded savages — for what reason? The savages were all massacred. The plain intention was to massacre them all and leave none alive. Then where was the use in furnishing mere temporary relief to a person who was presently to be exterminated? The dispatches call this battue a “battle.” In what way was it a battle? It has no resemblance to a battle. In a battle there are always as many as five wounded men to one killed outright. When this so-called battle was over, there were certainly not fewer than two hundred wounded savages lying on the field. What became of them? Since not one savage was left alive!

The inference seems plain. We cleaned up our four days’ work and made it complete by butchering those helpless people.

The President’s joy over the splendid achievement of his fragrant pet, General Wood, brings to mind an earlier presidential ecstasy. When the news came, in 1901, that Colonel Funston had penetrated to the refuge of the patriot, Aguinaldo, in the mountains, and had captured him by the use of these arts, to wit: by forgery, by lies, by disguising his military marauders in the uniform of the enemy, by pretending to be friends of Aguinaldo’s and by disarming suspicion by cordially shaking hands with Aguinaldo’s officers and in that moment shooting them down — when the cablegram announcing this “brilliant feat of arms” reached the White House, the newspapers said that that meekest and mildest and gentlest and least masculine of men, President McKinley, could not control his joy and gratitude, but was obliged to express it in motions resembling a dance. Also President McKinley expressed his admiration in another way. He instantly shot that militia Colonel aloft over the heads of a hundred clean and honorable veteran officers of the army and made him a Brigadier General in the regular service, and clothed him in the honorable uniform of that rank, thus disgracing the uniform, the flag, the nation, and himself.

Wood was an army surgeon, during several years, out West among the Indian hostiles. Roosevelt got acquainted with him and fell in love with him. When Roosevelt was offered the colonelcy of a regiment in the iniquitous Cuban-Spanish war, he took the place of Lieutenant Colonel and used his influence to get the higher place for Wood. After the war Wood became our Governor General in Cuba and proceeded to make a mephitic record for himself. Under President Roosevelt, this doctor has been pushed and crowded along higher and higher in the military service — always over the heads of a number of better men — [page 178] and at last when Roosevelt wanted to make him a Major General in the regular army (with only five other Major Generals between him and the supreme command) and knew, or believed, that the Senate would not confirm Wood’s nomination to that great place, he accomplished Wood’s appointment by a very unworthy device. He could appoint Wood himself, and make the appointment good, between sessions of Congress. There was no such opportunity, but he invented one. A special session was closing at noon. When the gavel fell extinguishing the special session, a regular session began instantly. Roosevelt claimed that there was an interval there determinable as the twentieth of a second by a stop-watch, and that during that interval no Congress was in session. By this subterfuge he foisted this discredited doctor upon the army and the nation, and the Senate hadn’t spirit enough to repudiate it.

, , , , , , , , ,

    • Alyeth

      How is it not relevant?

    • Steve

      How is this relevant?

    • Muslim

      @ Christian-friend,

      Maybe, just maybe, deep down hidden away, TRUTHSEEKER actually has a twinge of universal human conscience that cannot always be overridden by the robotic sectarian brainwashing?

      A ray of light?

    • NurAlia

      @Christian Friend…

      You might remember the bitter old Malaysian woman who scolded you for ‘apologizing’ for something done in the ‘…name of Christianity..’ that you personally didnt condone or support.

      When I want to talk about hate with Muslims, I use stories like the reaction to the Qur’an burnings to make points. I dont ‘blame’ the idiot who thinks it is free speech to alight, because you really shouldnt blame people with limited humanity capacity for thier acts.

      I want Muslims to ‘see thier point of view’…as somehow, they see themselves as victims, where they cant get justice, so they murder innocent people. I use this though, to denounce the excuse of ‘well they did it to us…so lets do it to them’

      We dont want to become barbarians because people act like barbarians towards us. However Christian Friend, as I told you…the IndoChinese conflict was much broader, and longer, and much more destructive than westerners know…and we who live near it, or around it still see the stains that it left.

      If you could…I would ask you to share this story with your Christian friends. Please dont condemn them, blame them, or even apologise as a Christian for these things. In order for us to heal the wound between us, we each have to understand how the wounds were inflicted.

      Thank you ok.

    • Christian-friend

      @TRUTH SEEKER, where are you? why aren’t you defending massacres like you always do? are going to say that they deserve it? that they are evil for not being killed?

      Huh? HUH?

    • NurAlia

      Yes Oh Christian…this is your stain on our side of the world. The soldier who walked into those homes in Afganistan, is just one more notch for you…or 16 more savages dead…for thier own good.

    • Truth Hurts

      Paraphrasing President MacKinley >

      “We’re going to Christianize & civilize them!”

      Sounds similar to the Viet Nam war cry > liberating them, by killing them…

    • Curly

      Shock to learn another dark side in United States. Thank you

  • mindy1

    I think this was the incident that lead to Mark Twain writing the War Prayer-reading the reviews for it, it’s amazing that vets seem to get it also

Robert Spencer: Muslim Appointees Deserve Special Loyalty Test (Video)

Faith in Public Life (FPL) just interviewed Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer.  I’ve reproduced their excellent article below, which is where you can see the video yourself.  In it, Spencer endorses a special loyalty test for Muslims:

FPL: Do you think Muslim appointees to office deserve a special test or a special kind of investigation before they are appointed?

Spencer: Well, I think it’s entirely reasonable.

In light of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is, in its own words, dedicated to eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house, then certainly any Muslim official that [sic] has ties to the Brotherhood organizations in the United States–of which there are very many–should be vetted very carefully.

FPL: So you think any Muslim that is appointed should be investigated for any of those ties before they are appointed?

Spencer: Yes, certainly.

FPL also points to Robert Spencer’s double standards and hypocrisy when it comes to Islam and his own religion, Christianity (specifically, Catholicism).  Those of you familiar with my writing know that whenever I point this out, Spencer starts crying “tu quoque, tu quoque fallacy!”  That’s because his own religion can’t withstand the same standard he applies to Islam.

FPL asked Spencer if he found it problematic when Muslims called themselves “Muslims first, Americans second.”  Spencer responded emphatically in the affirmative, saying: “It’s a big problem.”  Then, FPL asked Spencer if he himself was American first or a Christian first.  Spencer was caught off-guard and tried to evade answering the question.  When FPL pushed him further on the issue, he refused to answer the question, saying: “Neither one.” Then, he finally admitted that he in fact placed his faith first, even above American law.

Anybody see the glaring hypocrisy here?  It’s in fact the same double standard applied by pro-Israel Islamophobes who attack American Muslims for having “dual loyalty” to their ancestral homelands and “the Ummah”, when in fact they themselves have “dual loyalty” to America and Israel, often placing the latter’s interests above the former.

Spencer tries to justify his double standard by arguing that Christianity “isn’t incompatible with the constitutional freedoms” whereas Islam is “is manifestly incompatible” with them.  In other words, it simply hasn’t been an issue with his Christianity.

Yet, Spencer contradicts himself in the very next sentence:

FPL: So would you describe yourself as an American first and a Christian second, or Christian first and American second?

Spencer: Neither one.  I think it’s a distinction when it comes to Christianity that thus far, there has not been a problematic issue of allegiance. If it comes down to the new Obama directives with the Catholic Church, for example, forcing it to go back on its own policies and its own doctrine…then obviously those are unjust laws that ought not to be passed.

Spencer is here alluding to the issue of abortion.  It should be noted that “the Supreme Court ruled that women had a constitutional right to abortion”, yet Catholics like Robert Spencer want to deny this right to women.  Isn’t this exactly the sort of conflict that Spencer found to be “a big problem” when it comes to Muslims?  Isn’t this, using Spencer’s own standard, “a problematic issue of allegiance” between Catholic doctrine and the Constitution?

But remember: don’t dare apply the standard Spencer does to Islam to his own religion!  Only a leftist dhimmi would do that!

Here is the article:

Robert Spencer’s Double-Standard on Religious Freedom

Anti-Muslim activists often complain that Muslims living in this country don’t effectively assimilate into American culture, that they consider themselves Muslims first and Americans second. Despite the fact that polling has found that Muslim Americans are actually the most loyal religious group in the nation – 93 percent of Muslim Americans say they are loyal to America, and Muslims have the highest confidence in the integrity of the US election process – far-right pundits continue to further the myth that Muslims lack commitment to this country because their faith puts them in conflict with constitutional law.

In fact, the concept of prioritizing faith principles before the law is not unique to Muslims. Prominent Christian figures such as Pat Robertson have publicly remarked that they consider themselves Christians first and Americans second. Perhaps even more telling is the extent to which the current contraception mandate controversy is dominating the political conversation, with some Catholic leaders suggesting they would shut down their hospitals and schools or perform civil disobedience instead of complying with a law they believe conflicts with their faith.

At the recent CPAC conference here in Washington, Nick interviewed prominent anti-Islam activist Robert Spencer and found this exact double standard. Spencer criticizes Muslims for prioritizing Islam over US law, while going on to say he would put his Christian faith first in a situation where Christianity came into conflict with the law:

FPL: A lot of people point to polls that Muslims in various countries suggest that they’re Muslims first and then loyal to that country second – American second, or Spanish second. Do you think that’s a problem and are you worried about that?

Spencer: It’s a big problem, and it’s something that has to be taken into account…when it comes to Islamic law and the constitution, there are many, many ways in which Islamic law contradicts the constitutional freedoms. Then if somebody has a loyalty to Sharia, to Islam first, then that’s very problematic.

FPL: And would you describe yourself as American first, or as a person of faith first?

Spencer: I’m an American and a person of faith. And I believe that my faith, as a Christian, isn’t incompatible with the constitutional freedoms. But Islamic law is manifestly incompatible with constitutional freedoms.

FPL: So would you describe yourself as an American first and a Christian second, or Christian first and American second?

Spencer: Neither one. I think it’s a distinction when it comes to Christianity that thus far, there has not been a problematic issue of allegiance. If it comes down to the new Obama directives with the Catholic Church, for example, forcing it to go back on its own policies and its own doctrine…then obviously those are unjust laws that ought not to be passed.

FPL: So if there was a conflict between your faith and the law, you would choose your faith?

Spencer: Yeah.

The hypocrisy is apparent. If conservatives are concerned with religious liberty, then that liberty ought to be applied to faith traditions across the board, including Islam. At the same conference, conservative paragon Grover Norquist made this same point (around the 2:42 mark):

FPL: So do you think it harms the conservative argument for religious liberty…when [Republican candidates] have previously expressed some similar concerns to extending this [liberty] to Muslim Americans?

Norquist: You can’t be for religious liberty for some people and not others, or the whole thing falls apart. No one in court is going to rule that way. The court will either go with, yes you can ban synagogues, mosques, missionaries and Catholic hospitals– or you can’t do any of that…I’ve noticed that all faith traditions recognize that an attack on one is an attack on all.

As Norquist points out, Spencer’s duplicitous arguments about Islam fall flat. When it comes to religious freedom, the far right cannot have its cake and eat it too.

, , , , , , , , ,

    • revenge

      @fredrick Honestly, what’s the point? Any genuine jihadist will simply lie anyway. And furthermore, where’s the loyalty test for Christians? Christianity has committed far more atrocities in America and around the world than Islam ever has.

    • fredrick

      I’m down with loyalty tests for muslim appointees. In an increasingly violent world in which muslim jihadists play a prominent role its much better to be safe than sorry. There’s too much at stake.

      It can and did happen here.

    • Lloyd Miller

      Please can you back up your comments. I am particularly interested in your backing up these:

      “YES, Islam DOES CALL for the destruction of all other religions.”

      “Islam is in total opposition to the essence and scope of Western Institutions, especially the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution”

      Please use Islamic sources etc etc, not Mr Spencer. The one about Islam being against the US Deceleration of Independence was the most amusing, are you aware which state was the first to recognize the USA? It was a place called Morocco…

      Thanks, no reply expected.

    • Lilly

      Sorry Lloyd… It does not, and neither does TRUE Christianity…. Too bad people twist words and religion to suit themselves and their desires instead of just following their moral code/religious code.

Powered by Loon Watchers