silence in the face of the Wilders trial is a variation of a traditional antisemitic argument

Submitted by myth (Germany), Feb 8, 2010 at 09:12

After speaking to many people I distilled one argument: "Wilders explicit speech is indecent, it disturbs our peace and therefore he deserves some punishment, however we do not want talk about what is happening to him in the trial" .

That to me is a variation of a traditional anti-semitic argument. I heard the anti-american variation that goes like "the 9-11 attacks were wrong but somehow the US deserved some kind of punishment." The anti-Israel argument variation: "the terror attacks on Israel are wrong but Israel sure provoked them and left the palestinians no other choice". "The original argument is "the holocaust was wrong, but there must have been something the jews did to excite the anger of the german population, they brought it on themselves, let's not talk about it any longer.". That is the mindset at work here in the media. They see it as Wilders fault, he wanted the trial for his own publicity. I have the highest respect for Wilders and his sacrifice.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".