Hoestra Finally Apologizes To Dutch For False Statements About Muslim Terror in Netherlands

1200px-Pete_Hoekstra_official_photoWe have been following the train wreck following the arrival of our new ambassador, Pete Hoekstra, to the Netherlands.  The former Republican congressman was confronted by reporters about a false statement that he made in 2015 when he said “the Islamic movement has now gotten to a point where they have put Europe into chaos. Chaos in the Netherlands, there are cars being burnt, there are politicians that are being burnt. And yes, there are no-go zones in the Netherlands.”  When confronted by the reporters that no such chaos occurred, Hoekstra denied making the statement.  He insisted “I didn’t say that. That is actually an incorrect statement. We would call it fake news. I never said that … it’s not what I said.”  The reporter then played the tape and Hoekstra stumbled with “I didn’t call that fake news. I didn’t use the words today. I don’t think I did.” If Hoekstra thought that that would be the end of it, he was mistaken. This week he held his first press conference and and again refused to retract and apologize for the statement. The reporters reminded Hoekstra that in the Netherlands, reporters actually expect leaders to answer questions and continued to press him.  Hoekstra was clearly used to reporters in the states who shrug and move on with questions as evasive responses.  The problem is that it does not work in the Netherlands and now Hoekstra has painfully and belatedly apologized.

Notably, the State Department took the unusual step of distancing itself from Hoekstra after he repeatedly refused to apologize and correct the record.  Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein  stated “The ambassador made mistakes in 2015. Those comments were not the position of the State Department, and you will never hear those words from this podium.”

Hoekstra finally apologized on Friday stating “That was a wrong statement. That was just wrong.”  He added “Looking back, I am shocked I said that. It was a wrong statement. It was wrong.”  At points however he seemed to be referring to someone else: “That one shocked me personally … because while you know there have been other issues in other countries in Europe, you know that has never been the circumstances here.”

Had Hoekstra responded honestly and openly, this matter would not have festered for so long.  Instead, he dug in deeper.  Hence the Dutch expression, Beter hard geblazen, dan de mond gebrand (“Better to have blown hard, than to have a burned mouth.”).

45 thoughts on “Hoestra Finally Apologizes To Dutch For False Statements About Muslim Terror in Netherlands”

  1. sorry but no-go zones exist in the Netherlands and other parts of the EU

    “Area two kilometres from city centre has become ‘orthodox Muslim territory’ largely ignored by authorities ”

    “The Netherlands is a country where the Muslim community shows few signs of integration. There are now forty no-go zones, in which constant rioting take place, most recently in Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Nijmegen and Veldhoven.”

    European ‘No-Go’ Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating

    of course you could always check with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

  2. Bring him home. Certainly Holland has problems with certain immigrants, but he shouldn’t have lied. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali was a US citizen she’d make an great ambassador, but wait, doesn’t she still have a fatwah against her?

  3. Considering the fact that the European nations keep denying terrorist actions that have later been proven, Hoekstra’s only mistake was not recognizing what he had said and then denying it. Politicians make errors of this type all the time and this error was made before Hoekstra became Ambassador. Should we attack every politician for every error? He wasn’t totally incorrect for such or similar events did occur in the area, but perhaps ( and we don’t know for sure) didn’t occur in the Netherlands. People get so upset at such trivial matters.

    The big picture is that terrorism and a lot of problems exist today in Europe. Many European leaders wish to deny the effects of the mass migration into their countries and pretend that everything is rosy in part because they are not the ones suffering. Their people are. President Trump has been a strong voice warning against such large migrations and I guess the leadership and probably the media there do not like him. Fair enough, they are free to choose who they like and who they dislike.

    But I think a crazy type of hate spilled over onto Ambassador Hoekstra. He is a decent guy. In a way, their attack against Hoekstra is so out of proportion one might think that Hoekstra was simply a vehicle for them to get back at Trump. If so, maybe they don’t need an American Ambassador. That is for the two governments to decide.

    1. We have a family friend, his wife and two children who live in Stockholm. He’s a rabid anti-Trumper. I asked him early on (March of 2017) about the rising number of rapes happening in Sweden by the Muslim immigrants and he denied it was happening at all. He said that was just propaganda spewed by the Trump administration. We spoke last week and he finally admitted that the government had been downplaying the statistics. There are areas where he can no longer go with his family. He still loathes Trump but no longer denies the influx of Muslim immigrants is changing his beautiful country in ways that has him thinking of returning to the United States.

      1. Olly, send him my advice. Stay in Sweden. Your rabid anti-Trumper attitude is stupid and doesn’t add anything at this time to your home country. I am not talking about policy or ideological attitudes, just the stupidity of being a rabid anti-Trumper when Trump has proven to help so many citizens that are probably economically far worse off than you. Live with the changes that are occurring (in Sweden) that Trump is fighting against which in part causes you to despise him. Become rational and dispute policy, not personalities or eccentricities. Read about Churchill and take note of the hatred against him at times along with his eccentricities and then compare yourself to that Rennasaince Man, Churchill. You won’t measure up and neither can most of us. Take your head out of your as$ and start looking at the things that truly count. Then enjoy yourself and have a good life.

        1. Haha. Take your own medicine. Look at what this abomination is actually doing, rather than what he says he wants to do.

          This is to “I’ll buy a pig in a poke” allan

          1. “This is to “I’ll buy a pig in a poke” allan”

            …And shall I send my response to Mark M. who would steal a pig rather than work to buy one?

      2. Olly:

        I have a German friend who lives in the US who also claims that the immigrant crime in Europe is entirely fabricated by the alt-right. I try not to talk politics with friends, so I have no idea if she still doesn’t know what’s happening in her country of origin.

    1. Bernard Helinski – it is perfectly possible and a common occurrence that people hid from actual reality.

  4. What are the chances of Trump taking a cue from Hoekstra and apologizing for almost any number of his own controversial remarks such as the most recent one?

    The State of the Union Address is coming up on January 30th, 2018. What better opportunity for an apology might Trump be waiting for? Is “never” an opportunity?

    1. You need to be more specific…..if Trump apologized ” for almost any number of his own controversial remarks”, the State of the Union Address might extend into February.
      Due to time constraints, Trump is unlikely to include “mea culpas” in his speech, although I’m sure he is natuarally inclined to apologize whenever he offends someone.
      Whatever Trump says, however he performs, I think we’re likely to see the same kind of media follow-up that followed his joint address to Congress a year ago.

      1. Tom Nash said, “You need to be more specific . . .”

        Greater specificity requires greater memory. That’s no longer possible given the sheer volume of Trump’s controversial remarks. Let’s say we start with the most recent outrage. Wait. What am I saying? There are fifteen days, counting exclusively, till The State of the Union. Trump’s bound to say or tweet something outrageous before then. Who can remember all of it?

        1. A. That’s why “almost any number” is too open-ended.😄
          IMO, if a recommendation for apologies is given, it should be accompanied with some guidelines.
          B. If the speech exceeds the built-in low expectations, watch for a replay of the Feb. 28-March 1, 2017 news cycle.

          1. PS…Does Trump get credit for any past apologies he might have issued?
            Does that in any way offset the “apology deficit” that you claim he needs to address in his speech?

          2. B. Any apology from Trump for anything Trump has said or done would instantaneously exceed any expectations whatsoever.

            1. ( your) expectations….a lot of people would be disappointed if Trump incorporated apologies into the a State of the Union Address.
              Others might go into shock.

        2. I’d settle for an accounting of just the outright, bald-faced lies. We could save “controversial remarks” for next week.

    2. Threesome porn boy ain’t apologizin to da country or Melania for nothin. What an embarrassment to da world that this nasty critter is da leader.

      1. But Ken, we haven’t received any hush money. No hush money, no non-disclosure agreement. No NDA, demand apologies for all of it.

    3. What are the chances of Trump taking a cue from Hoekstra and apologizing for almost any number of his own controversial remarks such as the most recent one?

      That’s as funny as it is naive. You haven’t been paying attention. Apologize? There is absolutely zero chance the hoards with torches and pitchforks will be satiated by anything less than an announcement he is resigning.

      1. Trump is not Frankenstein’s monster. He’s Bannon’s monster. And I refuse to apologize for the torches and the pitchforks until I get either the hush money or an apology from Trump.

      1. David Benson – I am starting to feel a little better, so blame it on that. 😉

  5. Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
    It would seem Hoekstra has now apologised. Suspect it is too grudging and too late. Any credibility he may have had is now lost.

  6. He handled this situation quite poorly, which is a bad sign for an ambassador. For too long, ambassadorships are given out as plums, when they should be reserved for the remarkably diplomatic and astute. This does not bode well for his friendship with the Netherlands.

    He got the country wrong, but close. It was Molenbeek in Brussels that was described by the media as a no-go zone in 2015, and I don’t know of any cars or politicians burning. It’s rife with Islamic extremists and has a rather infamous reputation for terrorism and anti-Semitism. In addition, there are no-go zones in France where it is unsafe for Jewish people due to extremist Islamic migrants. There is a rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe, sadly, due to massive Islamic migration from regions infamous for anti-Semitism, as well as the re-emergence of anti-Semitism among Progressives, such as BDS, and BLM, which considers Israel an illegal occupier. I had thought that such bias was cast aside by Progressives after WWII, but it is returning in spades.

    As far as I know, the European acid attacks have mostly happened in France and UK, typically perpetrated by extremist Muslims against women. Acid attacks are also on the rise in India, again predominantly against women. I don’t know of any politicians being involved. As far as Europe being in chaos, I would stay that there is a degree of general fear in London and Paris due to repeated terrorism, but people press on, and it’s not chaos.

    Perhaps someone who spoke Dutch, and loved the Netherlands would be better suited.

    1. After reading your comment about BLM I did a little research and came across this article. Two questions. 1. Would you say this is a fair representation of the situation? 2. While Israel may not like it described in those terms, doesn’t their settlements policy (or lack thereof) make them an illegal occupier?

      1. “doesn’t their settlements policy (or lack thereof) make them an illegal occupier?”

        No. It doesn’t make then an illegal occupier any more than any nation that has been attacked by the adjoining nation where the boundaries then changed. Being attacked on a continuous basis and not being recognized as a state by their enemies Israel has to make sure that their borders are secure.

        Based on the limited statement you made all or almost all countries are illegal occupiers.

        1. Speaking specifically about Israel, the definition of their outposts is that they were not authorized by any government echelon, went through no planning process, and encroaches on private land owned by Palestinians. The Israeli government has acknowledged that their outposts are illegal settlements but tells their military to protect them anyway. Apart from the authorized settlements (on privately held Palestinian land), the outposts by any definition are illegal. What nicer words would you prefer that I use?

          1. What government echelon are you talking about? If the Israeli government permits it that is all that matters. Israel is a sovereign nation. Where has Israel “acknowledged that their outposts are illegal settlements”? If they were truly illegal they would be charged will violating the law. Why is it you feel that Arabs should be able to live anywhere but Jews shouldn’t have that same privilege? About 800,000 Jews were thrown out of the surrounding nations under the threat of death and not permitted back. Their possessions were stolen and never returned, but you think that expulsion and theft were legal. That 800,000 has increased in population, but I hear nothing with regard to their right of return.

      2. Enigma – I’m not entirely sure what you are asking in #1. Is what a fair representation of the situation? That Israel is an illegal occupier? Or were you referring to the acid attacks?

        2) Israel is not an illegal occupier. The Middle East in general is passionately anti-Semitic, and will not allow a non-Muslim country in the region of even a single square foot. Period. That is why the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, et al admits that their goal is the ultimate annihilation of Israel. It is why Palestinian teachers in UN schools teach Palestinian and Arab kids that Israel is not even on the map, and that it belongs to the Arab world, and that they should do everyone a favor and go kill some Jewish people. (Yes, this really happened. You can GOOGLE terrorism in UN schools to find a source you agree with.)

        Jerusalem was always the capital of Israel. In the beginning, it was hoped that it would be internationally administered, but no Arab country agreed. Jordan immediately invaded West Jerusalem, and true to extremism, drove out all the Jews at gunpoint. Mind you, this was directly after WWII and the Holocaust.

        The Middle East wants Israel destroyed.

        Israel is the holy land of Jewish people. It has been held in a variety of hands. After the Ottoman Empire, the British Mandate started building Israel. Nomadic Arabs traveled to this sparsely populated land for the jobs, much like migrant workers have done since antiquity. But, when it came down to it, they demanded that Israel not actually exist, because they applied Islam as a religion of intolerance and expansion.

        Palestine was never actually a country; it was a region. The Philistines were a sea-faring people who have died out. The Romans renamed the region “Palestine” after they drove out the Jews.

        After WWII, they gave far more land to Muslims in the Muslim area of Palestine – now known as Jordan. Muslims got one part of the region known as Palestine – the greater part, that is now called Jordan. Jews got the lesser part, the religious holy land written about many times in the Torah and the Bible. That is called Israel. If Israel has no right to exist than neither does Jordan or any of the other nations whose borders were drawn up after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The Empire held a bunch of acrimonious places together with an iron fist and serious human rights abuses.

        The Middle East is generally anti-Semitic, and does not recognize the right of Israel to exist. In Iran, they begin elementary school days with the chant, “Death to Israel! Death to America!” My Persian friend once showed me his stamp collection. While I collected Queens and ducks, his had bloody Stars of David, burning flags, dead Jews…It was shocking. He didn’t remember the entire collection being so full of hate, and he was shocked, too. Can you imagine if they felt that way about black people? (Actually, there is quite a bit of racism in the Middle East, where they feel they are far superior in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq over the African Muslim nations because of skin color. However, Mohammad was openly racist and had slaves, and proclaimed that black believers were worth less than whites. As the religion is not allowed to evolve, according to extremists, they have not shaken off that prejudice. The only reason why so much of Africa is Muslim is because they were conquered and forcibly converted by Muslim slavers centuries ago.)

        If all it took for Palestinians to stop stabbing, blowing up, running over, and otherwise murdering Jewish men, women, and children, and for the rest of the ME to stop plotting its destruction, was for the tiny country of Israel to give up even more land to the Muslims than the inequitable division in the first place, then peace would have been achieved decades ago. Israel has repeatedly tried to do just that, but the Palestinians will not accept it, because it wants Israel gone.

        How do you negotiate with someone who wants you dead?

        If you imagine the situation in the Middle East as an enormous, powerful, wealthy KKK region of millions of people trying to kill a tiny country of black people in a homeland that goes back thousands of years, and they show constant bigotry and violence, then you will have some idea of the situation. There are some in the ME that would like to get along, but in general, the proportion of anti-Semitism is intense.

        1. Karen, it is unlikely that you and I will cause peace in the Middle-East. Mush of what you have said about the Palestinians is either historically or presently true. It is also a true thing that Israeli citizens, without the authorization of their government have established outposts illegally on Palestinian land and they bare then defended by the Israeli military. I would ask, how do you negotiate with someone that won’t acknowledge the truth?

          1. “illegally on Palestinian land ”

            What makes that Palestinian land? If anything it is Jordanian, or earlier British and even earlier Israel. Don’t you know your history? Who are the Palestinians? There is no ethnicity to be affixed to the word “Palestinian”.

            “Leading up to Israel’s independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians.”

            “Though the definite origins of the word Palestine have been debated for years and are still not known for sure, the name is believed to be derived from the Egyptian and Hebrew word peleshet. Roughly translated to mean rolling or migratory, the term was used to describe the inhabitants of the land to the northeast of Egypt – the Philistines. The Philistines were an Aegean people – more closely related to the Greeks and with no connection ethnically, linguisticly or historically with Arabia – who conquered in the 12th Century BCE the Mediterranean coastal plain that is now Israel and Gaza.
            A derivitave of the name Palestine first appears in Greek literature in the 5th Century BCE when the historian Herodotus called the area Palaistin?(Greek – Παλαιστ?νη). In the 2nd century CE, the Romans crushed the revolt of Shimon Bar Kokhba (132 CE), during which Jerusalem and Judea were regained and the area of Judea was renamed Palaestina in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel.

            Under the Ottoman Empire (1517-1917), the term Palestine was used as a general term to describe the land south of Syria; it was not an official designation. In fact, many Ottomans and Arabs who lived in Palestine during this time period referred to the area as Southern Syria and not as Palestine.

            After World War I, the name Palestine was applied to the territory that was placed under British Mandate; this area included not only present-day Israel but also present-day Jordan.

            Leading up to Israel’s independence in 1948, it was common for the international press to label Jews, not Arabs, living in the mandate as Palestinians. It was not until years after Israeli independence that the Arabs living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were called Palestinians.

            The word Palestine or Filastin does not appear in the Koran. The term peleshet appears in the Jewish Tanakh no fewer than 250 times.” __JVL

            1. “A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.

              The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.

              The term “Palestine” is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century A.D., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word “Filastin” is derived from this Latin name.

              The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation’s capital. Although eventually Palestine was split into two separate kingdoms, Jewish independence there lasted for 212 years. This is almost as long as Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.

              Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.

              Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.

              When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: “There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.” In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called “the holy land” (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).

              Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

              We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.

              In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: “There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria.”

              The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said “Palestine was part of the Province of Syria” and that, “politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity.” A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: “It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria.”

              Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel’s capture of the West Bank.

              Israel’s international “birth certificate” was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel’s people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.” __JVL

      1. BabaT – the IRA taught you how to live with terrorist attacks and, of course, the Germans blitzed the hell out of you.

  7. What a fool. Surprising that the government of The Netherlands are willing to acredit him.

    And by the way, only the citizens of Holland are “Dutch” and Holland is only one of the provinces of The United Provinces of the Netherlands, to use the full name of the little country.

Comments are closed.