Wilders: "Show Me the Money"

The cost of Mohammedan infiltration:

Geert Wilders

    “300.000 Mohammedans will explode if you hold them accountable for welfare fraud!”

After the government in 2001 discovered massive welfare fraud and wanted to research the registers in Morocco, the social attaché of the Dutch embassy was threatened and was provided with private security. When the Dutch government proposed to stop the transfer of children’s allowance, the Moroccan Ambassador in the Netherlands threatened : “they should not enrage 300,000 Moroccans [in the Netherlands], they will explode.” The Dutch government (then PvdA, VVD and D66) stopped the research.

  • The Price Tag on Dutch Multiculti- befuddlement
  • Is Mohammedan immigration an asset or a liability?/I think we all know the answer to that…

Flemish correspondent VH has compiled a report on Geert Wilders’ recent call for an official government assessment of the costs of immigration. Here’s his summary (footnotes are all the way at the bottom of the post):

While the Belgian government is planning to hand out residence permits (and taxpayers’ money) to 50,000 or even 100,000 illegal “sans papiers” (the Dutch government did the same in 2007 with 27,500 asylum seekers), the PVV in the Netherlands demands a proper insight in the costs and benefits of immigration. All parties except the center-right VVD oppose the request, and we have yet to see whether the Jan Peter Balkenende government will sabotage the request or not.

Vlaams Belang requested the same a few years ago in Flanders. Though they did not get any answers from the government, they were still able to produce an outstanding report based on data collected by other means. Still, immigration continues: the immigrant share of prison population in the VB report is 38.4% (2006), but in the meantime it has risen to 48%(2009). (Minus three gangsters, Ashraf Sekkaki, Abdelhaq Melloul Khayari, and another one escaped in a helicopter Thursday night.)

The “traditional” parties, on the one hand, claim that immigration is a benefit to the economy and even a necessity, but on the other hand refuse to provide the data or help prove their viewpoint. In Flanders it became clear why: as it turns out, there is no benefit, but a loss of about €2 billion a year, a bill paid by the Flemish taxpayer.

The Migration Policy Institute, a think tank, states on this issue: “[…] Although public spending on immigration is rising in many countries […], there is very little comparative data on migration policy spending.” They further state that “evaluation is required to estimate the impact of policy on individual immigrants as well as on natives.”

VH follows this analysis with several translations from the Dutch-language media. First, from Elsevier:

Cost of Immigration in the Netherlands? At least 100 billion!

“Those who research the immigration costs will be discredited”

To this, the answer would be: “those who prevent the research into immigration costs will be discredited”- makes a lot more sense. what say you?

By Syp Wynia

Sietse FritsmaHow predictable, the hue and cry on the questions directed at the government by PVV MP Sietse Fritsma about the costs of immigration. This is supposed to be a new low in the activities of the PVV, according to its opponents. But is that true?

It is absolutely past time to research the costs and benefits of — since the mid-sixties, large-scale — immigration. If only so that the politicians at least know what the material consequences are when they again open the border to immigrants with similar characteristics (regions of origin, education, employment opportunities, culture, language) to those of the previous immigrants who arrived in the Netherlands.

This, of course, primarily concerns non-Western immigrants, at the moment about two million, who are quite out of tune in the lists on unemployment, pensions, crime and low income.

Last month the PVV [Party for Freedom], VVD [People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy] and Verdonk [TON, Proud of the Netherlands] together filed a motion to enforce such an investigation. The rest of the parliament, however — the majority at the moment — proved not to be interested and voted against the request (Verdonk apparently changed her mind later, she is now suddenly also against the request by the PVV).

It is quite odd that there are politicians who don’t want to know this. It is even the more remarkable since malicious myths are constantly being spread about the presumed benefits of immigration. But there are no benefits, at least there hardly ever are any.

Over the past few years, the Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS] issued various publications[1] in which it concluded that arriving immigrants, on balance, only contribute to the Netherlands when they have completed their education, earn more than the average resident during their stay — and therefore make an above-average contribution — and depart as soon as there are no more revenues.

It will be clear that most of the immigrants in the last half century do not meet these conditions, not even the hard-working but low-paid Polish immigrants, for they are paying too little tax to contribute.

Nevertheless, politicians continue to argue that immigration is needed to combat the aging of the population (which is nonsense, it will only add to a terrible overpopulation). And that the immigrants that are here at present make a useful contribution to the care for the aging Dutch elderly (the opposite is the case: immigrants are often unemployed and Muslim immigrant women hardly ever work in the care-sector).

Therefore, it is excellent that MP Fritsma asked his questions. Up until now we have had the estimates of the economist Pieter Lakeman[2], who ten years ago in his book Binnen zonder Kloppen [“Entering without knocking”] concluded there was a negative balance of 70 billion guilders [ca. €32 billion or US $45 billion: that would now be over €150 billioneuros] — only for the Turks and Moroccans, and without interest [and inflation correction]. Researcher Carlo van Praag back in 1988 calculated there was a negative balance of 54 billion guilders over the period 1975-1988 (but was not allowed to publish it).


Last year, Elsevier estimated the costs up to then to be at least €100 billion. Considering all the extra costs[4] and low contributions — from the costs of immigration lawyers up to the much higher than average use of social benefits — it would not be surprising if approximately another tenth may be added on top of that per immigration year. But these still remain estimates.

The answers to the questions of PVV MP Fritsma may offer a more precise understanding — if the government does not sabotage the questions. At the same time it is very strange that among the thousands of social scientists, faculties and research bureaus, there are hardly any who saw a reason to thoroughly investigate the financial balance of immigration.

Whoever did so, though, was taunted. The cost of immigration clearly has to stay under the carpet to enable the falsifications and myths to be continued. The hue and cry of GreenLeft MP Femke Halsema and D66 [center-left, anti Wilders party] MP Alexander Pechtold [3] can not be explained otherwise.

Vlaams Belang writes in a response:

But why do all the opponents rampage as a wild bunch against this PVV request? Weren’t they the ones who always have said that immigrants deliver an essential and indispensable contribution to our prosperity and economy? If that is the case, and can be proven with numbers, isn’t that to their advantage? For they always talk of the “multicultural enrichment”. If that enrichment is not in the economic contribution, where is it then? It won’t be in forced marriages, honor crimes, headscarves or burkas, will it?

And from the PVV website:

PVV: What does the immigrant cost us?

Party of Wilders demands extended cost-benefit analysis of almost all ministries

The PVV wants to know exactly how much immigrants cost the state, and how much they bring in. The question is whether the ministries involved are willing to comply with the demand for this cost-benefit analysis. The Party for Freedom asked almost all ministries to calculate exactly how much money they spend on immigrants and how much income there is from immigrant groups that benefits Dutch society.

Geert Wilders’ party colleague Sietse Fritsma has filed a “bombardment” of written questions to all members of the government who have anything to do with immigration policy. In one sweep, he earlier this week addressed the departments of finance, social affairs, health, housing, education, economic affairs and defense. The core of Fritsma’s questions is always the same: the government is spending a disproportionate amount of money to (non-Western) immigrants and there is little in return.

The PVV member wants to know how much less the immigrants to pay in taxes in comparison to the native Dutch. Because immigrants are more often unemployed or earn less, and have a disproportionately poor score in the tax revenue balance, as Fritsma already foresees in his questions.

From the Department of Education he wants an overview of the disproportionately high budgets that are spent on immigrants, which according to his observations are due to the truant behavior of many students. The Health Ministry should clarify how much more costly immigrants are, because they relatively more often pay a visit to the general practitioner. Fritsma also indicates a larger use of care and welfare support because of specific disorders that increasingly more often occur in this group, for example with the children from “niece-with-cousin” marriages [consanguinity].

On similar basis, the MP asks for a clarification by Social Affairs of the more than average provision of social benefits, and by the Ministry of Housing on the high cost of the immigrants’ share of public housing. The Ministry of Justice must calculate whether immigrants are unusually expensive to the judiciary, and the cost of the fight against terrorism.

To the PVV it is not just about this year’s budget or the next for this government. The party wants all to have an overview of all costs and benefits over the past five years, plus a calculation forecast for the next five years.

It is not the first time the PVV has asked for this. In a parliamentary debate last month, Fritsma confronted Socialist [PvdA] Minister Van der Laan (Housing, Neighborhoods, Integration) with the estimate that the “extra call on social and other services” costs the Dutch government [i.e. the taxpayer] €100 billion. Fritsma confronted the Minister with this in his response to the remark of the minister that “many Muslims in the Netherlands contribute to society.”

Van der Laan promised to provide Fritsma with a comprehensive list of costs and benefits. PVV now requires a detailed calculation. Minister Van der Laan also said in that debate: “I am in no way impressed by the argument about these costs.”

It is not yet known whether all the departments will answer the PVV questions individually, nor whether the Balkenende IV government has decided on a joint response strategy.

VH adds this follow-up on the response to the PVV:

When the request to the Ministries on the costs and benefits of immigration by the PVV became public before the weekend, the Amsterdam PvdA (Labor, Socialists) member Jerry Straub filed a complaint with the Anti Discrimination Bureau Amsterdam on behalf of the PvdA, against the PVV.

Jerry Straub: “Because I will not let the country where I was born drift into a society in which descent and identity are the grounds for acceptance or rejection. That is not the Netherlands and especially not Amsterdam, the capital that I know, and where I, during the working visits to projects, meetings and organizations, almost daily see hear and feel the will and desire of many Amsterdammers to succeed, to live together, to make progress. Therefore the question ‘what do the immigrants cost us’ makes no sense. For the PVV is costing us more than we care for!”

In a response at HetVrijeVolk.com it was then explained that the requests by the PVV in parliament are covered by the constitution, and the Socialist Mr. Staub, who should have known this [or knows it, but hopes to gain the votes of the ignorant gutmenschen], made a fool of himself:

Mr. Straub again ridicules the PvdA: Mr. Straub without doubt feels himself quite a fancy guy. He dared to file a charge against a member of parliament of the PVV with the Anti Discrimination Bureau. However, the only thing Mr. Straub did was to make himself — and with that the PvdA — a ridiculous fool. For what he wants is impossible under Article 71 of the Constitution, which reads: “The members of the States-General [parliament] […] can not be prosecuted in the courts nor be addressed to for what they have said or handed over in writing at the meetings of the States-General or its committees.” Thus of course, the content of (written) requests in the parliament are covered by this article of the constitution.


[1] In 1999, the CBS warned about unforeseen risks to the budget caused by immigration (asylum seekers). They estimated for the year 2000 an extra expense of then ca. €0.7 billion (1.5 billion guilders, ex inflation correction) that only due to a very modest increase of wages could be covered. Basically the CBS said that the Dutch taxpayer was earning less than he should, to pay the bill for this immigration. CBS further estimated that every asylum seeker (those days) cost €20,000 for shelter, extra police, education and juridical procedures. Today that would be roughly ca. €30,000 per asylum seeker in the first year.
[2] Pieter Lakeman, econometrist, writer and founder of corporate watchdog group Sobi (credo: Cedo Nulli: they recently accused Tim Geithner of “sucking the US treasury dry”) published Binnen zonder kloppen (“Entering without knocking”; Dutch immigration policy and the economic consequences) in 1999. He stated that the immigration policy is a loss to the government: then €6 billion a year. The Moroccans and Turks in the preceding twenty years alone had cost the taxpayer then more than €30 billion. FEM Business wrote: “The book had hardly arrived at the bookstore when the Nederlands Centrum Buitenlanders [Dutch Foreigners Center, run by Mohammed Rabbae, involved in the ban of The Downfall of the Netherlands and nowadays in the International Socialist anti-Wilders campaign] filed a summary procedure in court against the publication of the book. A critical book about immigrants? Immediately ban it! And as it goes with every stupid action, the bold attempt to ban the book caused the exact opposite effect: even more media attention for Pieter Lakeman. Though the procedure seems strange for an organization that claims to strive for a tolerant society, the Pavlov-reflex of the NCB was not really a surprise. Lakeman himself had already described this phenomenon in his book.
[3] A few quotes from parties that oppose the PVV request:

  • “Are we all going to ask each other now how many euros we are worth? Terrible,” grumbles Socialist party [extreme-left] MP Sadet Karabulut. Her GreenLeft [extreme-left] colleague Femke Halsema: “It’s crazy wanting to express the value of people in money.”
  • PvdA [Socialist, Labor] MP Khadija Arib [herself a Moroccan immigrant]: “It’s an impossible discussion that will lead nowhere. How does the PVV want to calculate the costs and benefits of the guest workers of those days? Those who worked hard and sometimes died soon, like my own father?”
  • Alexander Pechtold (MP for the anti Wilders party D66 [center-left]) pulls up his shoulders at this “absurd” plan. “You can make it as crazy as you want. I would say, Mr. Fritsma, just go on an enjoyable vacation for a while”.
  • The Christian Union MP Ed Anker does not appreciate the summing up of little numbers as he call it: “Many groups in society cost money, that is part of our welfare state.”
[4] Immigration has many costly implications. Just to sum up a few:

In 2007 the government spending on special primary education (children who are handicapped or not doing well at a normal school, due to a behavior disorder for instance) got out of hand: already one billion euros. In Amsterdam a research on psychosocial and mentally handicapped children showed that 59% of children who suffered from these problems were Moroccans and Turks, substantially higher than the average, and possibly due to consanguinity [inbreeding].

And while the Dutch taxpayers also have to pay that bill [estimated one billion plus], Moroccan immigrants themselves transfer money to Morocco “for the purchase of sheep for the sacrifice feast. That money they withdraw from the education budget [social benefit] of their own children in the Netherlands.”

Still, a Turkish immigrant, Zeki Arslan of the multicultural institute Forum, suggested that the government: “cancel the Joint Strike Fighter project for the Air Force, and use that money for education to (immigrant) children with language problems. Otherwise the minister should ask the EU for 1.5 to 2 billion euros for education for [immigrant] children up to 4 years of age”. He did not mention the responsibility of immigrant parents.

The ratio of employed versus unemployed of Moroccan and Turkish immigrants, to give an impression:

  • For Turks the ratio is 1.75:1
  • For Moroccans the ratio is 1.58:1
  • For the native Dutch the ratio is 7.54 to 1

Moroccans with social benefits who own property in Morocco (many do), must report that when they receive social benefits (and then have their benefit reduced). After the government in 2001 discovered massive fraud and wanted to research the registers in Morocco, the social attaché of the Dutch embassy was threatened and was provided with private security. When the Dutch government proposed to stop the transfer of children’s allowance, the Moroccan Ambassador in the Netherlands threatened : “they should not enrage 300,000 Moroccans [in the Netherlands], they will explode.” The Dutch government (then PvdA, VVD and D66) stopped the research.

Geert Wilders: “In illuminating for Westerners exactly what the Koran teaches, Spencer has performed a valuable service in the defense of Western civilization against the Islamic jihad”

22 thoughts on “Wilders: "Show Me the Money"”

  1. Geert Wilders: “In illuminating for Westerners exactly what the Koran teaches, Spencer has performed a valuable service in the defense of Western civilization against the Islamic jihad”

    rather like Adolf Hitler saying how helpful and usuful Musolini is.

    It is easy to get quotes of one radical supporting another, try getting the real media and basic respected social commentators doing the same. Go on, try…

    Wilders was charged by the public prosecutor because he broke the law, he charged political bias so the high court and upper house of the Dutch parliament looked into it and agreed it was a just charge, showing that the only conspiracy that exists is in his mind and in fact being conducted by him.

    1. “rather like Adolf Hitler saying how helpful and usuful Musolini is.”

      Solker, it is the lowest of the low to smear a patriot like Wilders as “Hitler”. Needless to mention that the swine who engage in this kind of smears and diffamation have no place in our society.

      Wilders did not in any way “break the law”, he is a living reminder that our society is based on free speech and the freedom of the individual, the right to the pursuit of happiness our forefathers fought and died for. This is what’s at stake here and the law must be upheld. Our law, for you “man made law” to be replaced with the shari’a, must prevail against creeping Islamization.

      For us to remain free, our society, culture and civilization needs defending. Wilders, Spencer, Fitzgerald, Hirsi Ali, Pam Geller, Horowitz and myself are at the forefront in this fight against 1000 years of darkness, which will destroy us if we don’t act the way we must.

  2. “300.000 Mohammedans will explode if you hold them accountable for welfare fraud!”
    That’s a lot of SNIP …300.000 Anus Exploding at the same Moment ! it might be fun to see SNIP

    Keep it civil, Pierre!

  3. Solki, you forget that the Nazis and your co-religionists had the same goals and were close allies.

    The mufti al Husseini advised Hitler on how best to annihilate the Jews. If you spit in the wind don’t be surprised if it flies back in your face!

  4. Yes Blog-owner, the issue/menance of the western governments hinting support for a Jewish State in and around Jerusalem was a huge political scandal at that time and the attacks and acts of terrorism by Jewish fighters had been widely shown in the media.

    At that same time the “brotherhood” was already active and working on its own independance movement and had a number of supporters amongst clerics. The result is what you see in that photo, the political-radical combination that was willing to side with another radical because they “shared a common enemy”.

    In the end that Mufti suffered for his decision, it certainly confirmed the radical and dangerous motives of the Brotherhood, the Jewish State was created and those terrorists are now claimed as “freedom fighters” on the walls of memorials.

    Politics blog-owner.

    1. “In the end Mufti suffered for his decision”-

      will you get over your bleeding heart, Solker? Will you ever accept the fact that Israel exists and that there is nothing questionable about it?

  5. * Politics blog-owner.

    Prophecy, Solkhar.

    Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: O my people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. ( Ezekiel 37:11&12 )

    Nothing “allah” and his false prophet can do about it, Solkhar. Allah
    is impotent against the Lord.

  6. Solution: Treat moslem men exactly like they treat women in their home country.

    1. Moslem men get half of the welfare payments that women get.
    2. Moslem men need to be escorted everywhere they go outside of the home.
    3. Moslem men are not allowed to drive
    4. Moslem men will speak only when spoken to, and had not better speak to any strange women.

    I would, of course, include that all men must have a penectomy, if they come from countries which practice Female Genital Mutilation.

    They are extremely lucky I am not Geert Wilders. I would do much, much more. The first complaint equals a long swim home.

  7. Bryan has yet again shown a great deal of ……. lack of knowledge of the Muslim world and we can only hope that he talks starically and he is not embarassingly trying to be serious.

    Muslim women do not drive in Saudi and the Sudan (and probably Somalia but it has no laws). Obviously he does not know that.

    Most Muslim countries do not have Shari’a legal systems and the inheritance laws that you think you know do not apply.

    The bottom line is that it is rather meaningless to post items when you are not even aware of facts.

  8. Hey Solkhar –
    Here’s more historical perspective on the rat mufti Al-Husseini – friend of Hassan al Banna (muslim brotherhood) & another great Islasmic proponent of yer “JIHAD” – a bitter pill for muslims to swallow but good for one’s spiritual development or “inner struggle” so-to speak!

    The most senior Muslim cleric to be involved in the Holocaust/Porajmos was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (Edition 1990, Volume 2, Pages 706 and 707), made a substantial contribution to the Axis war effort by organizing “in record time” recruitment to Muslim SS units in Croatia that would be involved in some of the worse atrocities of the Second World War.

    Altogether, it is estimated that some 20,000 Muslims fought in the Hanjar (Sword) SS Division, which fought against Yugoslav partisans led by General Tito, and carried out police and security details in fascist Hungary. The Nazi’s recruited two SS divisions from Yugoslavia’s Muslim population: the infamous Bosnian 13th Waffen Hanjar (or Handschar) SS division, and the Albanian Skanderbeg 21st Waffen SS division. SS conscription in Yugoslavia during the war produced 42,000 Waffen SS and police troops

    The Encyclopedia of the Holocaust states:

    They participated in the massacre of civilians in Bosnia and volunteered to join in the hunt for Jews in Croatia . . . The Germans made a point of publicizing the fact that Husseini had flown from Berlin to Sarajevo for the sole purpose of giving his blessing to the Muslim army and inspecting its arms and training exercises.

  9. Oh how Islam hates the strong light of truth being shone on it they prefer to be hiding under rocks when they are not trowing them that is. Free speech and the internet will be the death of the CULT which is why they are fighting so hard to limit the former and control the latter.

  10. What Solkhahaha! and his co-submissives do not realise, is that they will be on the end of a crushing defeat. (They are such a perverse bunch of weirdos they will probably enjoy it) Islamist morons make a big splash a few small “m” (canon fodder) muslims die, a few flags are burnt threats, intimidation, yada! yada! yada! What they don’t comprehend, unlike their noisy splash, is the ripple effect that will turn into a great Sunami and scare the Islamo’s to the point of death inducing constipation. Don’t say that you have not been warned because you will not be able to see it coming when you have your head in the carpet and yer bum facing the sky.

  11. One more thing, just for you, Solker:


    The NGO UN human rights commission and pre-eminent historian David Littman (if you missed my interview with Mr Littman earlier this year, go here, it’s excellent) has laid out the historically accurate facts on Israel these past 100 years. Bottom line, they are so screwing the Jews (Mr. Littman didn’t say it that way, I did).

    Fourteen fundamental facts about Israel and Palestine.
    By David G. Littman

    It’s time to look back on 14 fundamental geographical, historical, and diplomatic facts from the last century relating to the Middle East. These basic facts and figures were stressed in recent statements to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights and its subcommission, to the surprise of representatives of both states and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
    1) After World War I Great Britain accepted the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, and then — with League of Nations approval — used its article 25 to create two distinct entities within the Mandate-designated area.

    2) The territory lying between the Jordan River and the eastern desert boundary “of that part of Palestine which was known as Trans-Jordan” (nearly 78 percent) thus became the Emirate of Transjordan. This new entity was put under the rule of Emir Abdullah, the eldest son of the Sharif of Mecca, as a recompense for his support in the war against the Turks, and of Ibn Saud’s seizure of Arabia (Faisal, Abdullah’s brother, later received the even vaster Mandate area of Iraq).

    3) Turning a blind eye to article 15, Great Britain also decided that no Jews could reside or buy land in the newly created Emirate. This policy was ratified — after the emirate became a kingdom — by Jordan’s law no. 6, sect. 3, on April 3, 1954, and reactivated in law no. 7, sect. 2, on April 1, 1963. It states that any person may become a citizen of Jordan unless he is a Jew. King Hussein made peace with Israel in 1994, but the Judenrein legislation remains valid today.

    4) The remaining area west of the Jordan River (comprising about 22 percent of the original Mandate) was then officially designated “Palestine” by Great Britain. As stated in the 1937 Royal Commission Report, “the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.” This was now greatly restricted.

    5) U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947) authorized a Partition Plan in this area: for an Arab and a Jewish state — and for a corpus separatum for Jerusalem. The plan was rejected by both the Arab League and the Arab-Palestinian leadership. Aided and abetted by the neighboring Arab countries, local armed Arab Palestinian forces immediately began attacking Jews, who counterattacked. On May 15, 1948, the armies of five Arab League states joined these militias in the invasion of Israel, but their armies failed in their goal of eradicating the fledgling state.

    6) The armistice boundaries (1949-1967) left Israel with roughly 16.5 percent, or 8,000 sq. miles, of the original 1922 Mandate area (about 48,000 sq. miles), while about five percent — less Gaza, which was occupied by the Egyptians — was conquered and occupied in 1948 by British General Glubb Pasha, the commander of Abdullah’s Arab Legion. The historic regions of “Judea and Samaria” — their official names as indicated on all British mandate maps until 1948 — were annexed and became the “West Bank” of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1950. All the Jews were expelled from the area and from the Old City of Jerusalem; their synagogues, and even tombstones on the Mount of Olives, were destroyed.

    7) Until King Hussein attacked Israel on June 6, 1967, Jordan’s recognized de facto boundaries covered 83 percent of Palestine (78 percent east of the Jordan river, and five percent to the west). Following its military defeat in the Six Day War, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan lost the “West Bank,” which it had illegally annexed 19 years earlier, retaining the huge “Transjordan” portion (78 percent) of the original League of Nations territory.

    8) Of Jordan’s current population of five million, about two-thirds (over three million) consider themselves “Arab Palestinians.” They are the descendants either of the original Arab Palestinian inhabitants of the Trans-Jordan region, or of roughly 550,000 Arab refugees from west Palestine who lost their homes after the Arab League armies failed to eradicate Israel first in 1948, and again in 1967. Nearly two million Jordanian Bedouin citizens and others do not identify themselves as Palestinians.

    9) After the 1967 disaster, an Arab League Summit Conference held in Khartoum that November reacted negatively to U.N. Security Council Resolution 247: “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no concessions on the questions of Palestinian national rights.” This was also the determined position of the PLO. Apart from Egypt’s 1981 peace treaty with Israel, there was little change, for the next two decades, in this refusal to negotiate according to U.N. Resolution 242.

    10) In those “West Bank and Gaza” areas, designated by the Oslo Accords of 1994 to be placed under the administration of the Palestinian Authority (covering about 5.5 percent of the “Greater Palestine” area on both sides of the Jordan), there is now a population of over 3,200,000, of whom about 35,000 are Christians, but none are Jews.

    11) The population of the Jewish state — a state envisaged in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, and confirmed by the U.N.’s 1947 decision — is now roughly 6,500,000, of whom roughly 20 percent are Arabs (120,000 Christians), Druze, and Bedouin citizens of Israel. Of the more than five million Jewish citizens, about one-half are those Jewish refugees from Arab countries, and their descendants, who fled or left their ancient homeland when massacres, arrests, and ostracism made life impossible (a further 300,000 emigrated to Europe and the Americas, where they number over a million).

    12) Today, a tiny, vulnerable Jewish remnant — scarcely 5,000 persons — remains in all the Arab world, less than half of one percent from the near million who were there in 1948 (this does not include the 50,000 in Turkey and Iran, left of about 200,000 in 1945). These are the forgotten Jewish refugees from Arab lands, from countries that will soon be totally judenrein just as Jordan has been since 1922.

    13) The 22 Arab League countries cover a global surface of over six million square miles, over ten percent of the land surface on earth. Israel, by contrast, covers barely 8,000 sq. miles.

    14) Security Council Resolution 242 has now become the panacea for Arab states, yet their interpretation of its key operative paragraph does not correspond to the English original, which version alone is binding. In March 2002, a Saudi “peace plan” was approved by the Arab League in Beirut, but behind it lurks the former 1981 “Fahd Plan” — with a facelift — that would leave Israel with impossible borders. After the Iraqi menace has been resolved one way or another, what is needed for the “Middle East peace process” is a concerted effort to support the Mitchell plan, which could one day lead to true peace and reconciliation for the whole region. But the Palestinian Authority will only become a genuine partner with Israel, alongside Jordan and Egypt, if there is a radical break with the past, and a new spirit of mutual acceptance prevails between the Arab world and Israel — with individual and collective security and dignity for all. This will only be feasible if democratic institutions and a respect for human rights and the rule of law become the norm, as they now are not. And it will only be feasible if the Arab world recognizes the inalienable legitimacy of Israel’s existence in a part of its historical land.

    — David G. Littman is a historian. Since 1986, he has been active on human-rights issues at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva. His recent statements on this subject were made as a representative of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, a nongovernmental organization.

    NGO: Obama’s Israel Policy Violates International Treaties

  12. “Will you ever accept the fact that Israel exists and that there is nothing questionable about it?”

    Israel exists, it is a historical fact and the only one who is not accepting facts is that this history has some factors that are not nice, like most if not all countries. I have also said that I recognise the State and that I support a “Two State” solution, not a One State.

    You just like twisting words blog-owner.

  13. “smear a patriot like Wilders as “Hitler””

    “Needless to mention that the swine who engage in this kind of smears and diffamation have no place in our society.”

    A patriot? Your not from my country for a start so you have no rights to talk about patriotism. The second, you obviosly do not know the meaning of the word bigotry of which he is definitly guilty of and of course you have avoided the point that the Crown Prosecutor’s Office considered it sufficient to charge and to ensure that there was no political pressure the very independant jurist panel of the High Court confirmed the validation of the charge as well as the Upper House of Parliament that the Government does not have a majority in.

    As for “this kind of defamation” that is rather pathetic considering that you are smearing my faith, the Prophet Mohammed and anyone who disagrees with you CONSTANTLY – making you the bigger and smellier swine by a long shot.

    “our society is based on free speech and the freedom of the individual, the right to the pursuit of happiness our forefathers fought and died for. This is what’s at stake here and the law must be upheld. Our law, for you “man made law” ”

    Again, your not from The Netherlands and yes we are talking about the laws of my country and it is under that law that he has been charged and will be found guilty. Get a grip!

    “Wilders, Spencer, Fitzgerald, Hirsi Ali, Pam Geller, Horowitz and myself are at the forefront in this fight against 1000 years of darkness”

    So from 1400 years it has dropped to 1000 and I guess it will be another figure tomorrow.

    Goering said that National Socialism was the bright light that will take Europe and the true race out of the darkness that has surrounding and infiltrated it. A former (and recently deceased) Austrian PM said that he was the champion of real European Identity and then his governement crashed (rather like he did later on) because of its internal bigotry.

    The fact is that the entire list you gave are in fact radical fringe dwellers that are not taken seriously except that you smack morality in the face publically and try constantly to catch the desperate, ignorants and confused ……… just like all radicals do.

    I think being linked to such names is a minus, not a plus.

    1. Solker sez:

      “Your not from my country for a start so you have no rights to talk about patriotism.”

      You wouldn’t know what patriotism is if it came to bite you in your left leaning dick, Solker. I have every right there is, Solker, just like Wilders has every right to be heard as an elected politician and a patriot. Your smears don’t stick, your hatred is wasted, the far left cowards and traitors will be paid with the currency of history.

      ” your not from The Netherlands and yes we are talking about the laws of my country and it is under that law that he has been charged and will be found guilty.”

      You wish! First of all you don’t know where I’m from, second Wilders has been charged in spite of the law that provides for freedom of speech and if the law is upheld and the judiciary is not corrupt he will not be found “guilty” because he isn’t.

      1000 years of coming darkness if Mohammedanism gains the upper hand.

      The Nazis and the soldiers of Allah were allies then and are allies again today. The Nazis were Socialists and the Socialists are supporting Mohammedanism today just like they did then.

      Freedom will prevail. We will prevail!

  14. Hey Richard,

    There are bad people everywhere, including bad Muslims, like Hitler and Stalin. Hitler may have never claimed God was on his side but he was brought up in a seriously faithful Christian society. Stalin was in fact a priest before he rejected it all. But that is another subject.

    The history of the Mufti and the brotherhood with Nazism is a history that, like the holocaust, must never be forgotten. It shows that for agendas and politics that mankind is willing to sell its soul.

    But fortunately there are good examples as well and they should be never forgotten.

    The National Holocaust Museum in Israel recognises and venerates King Mohammed V (the grand father of the current King) for his relentless refusal to hand over Moroccan and French Jews to the Vichey for extermination and removed religion from Identity cards and even changed names to ensure their non-identification.

    More recently they recognised the collective support, protection and hiding of Albanian Jews by the majority Muslim Albanians whom many lost their lives in the effort to hide and keep them alive.

    1. Solker sez:

      “There are bad people everywhere, including bad Muslims, like Hitler and Stalin.”

      There are indeed, but we are more concerned about the good muslims who are like Hitler and Stalin, those who take their religion seriously just like you, Solker. The bad muslims, as we understand it, are the apostates like Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina etc. who are doing whatever they can to wake up the sleeping infidels who just can’t imagine how evil Islam is.

      Ah, and about those Albanian saviours of Jews, here’s all you need to know:

      Albanian Muslims who saved Jews

  15. The blog-owner now wishes us to believe that borders set around the first world war is important and justification for something. He was not a diplomat and so my knowledge of geography, international politics and the rules and realities of frontiers then and now is perhaps more accute, but we know his agenda.

    Shall we say that the borders of 1918 are relevant for today? Sure, give back half of the world back to its colonial masters, eliminate in fact the State of Israel as it was only a discussion at that point, and so on and so forth.

    The excercise that the blog-owner just put is simply rather moot and he is trying to put some international laws in play but ignoring others such as the 43 UN laws that were ignored by say Israel. Simply because he wants the Palestinians to be ethically cleansed from their homes for a greater Israel.

  16. “…..has been charged in spite of the law that provides for freedom of speech …..”


    Wilders has been charged BECAUSE of the law and provides for freedom of speech and freedom against persecution, bigotry and hatred.

    Get it right, in The Netherlands, which you are certainly not from, we have a saying that roughly translates to the stupidity of “pissing in your pants when the pants is already wet”. Yelling freedom is rediculous when your only asking for is freedom to villify and then claiming foul when it bites you in the backyard.

    Rather like Wilder’s catch22 that makes him hide and avoid debate. He claims that he is the bastion and champion of “Freedom of Speech NO MATER WHAT” and thus when the debate on denial of the holocaust hit in the beginning of this year, people expected him to argue that it is a right – so tell us blog-owner, why did he run away and say nothing, even though every other time he was the first to shout out?

    What is his “next best favourite country” blog owner? Public record tell us…… but I rather would have you say it.

    Nazism has in fact parts of both the far left and even more parts and relationship with the far right. I thought you understood political leanings there blog-owner, that is sad.

Comments are closed.