Introducing Mike Guzovsky, the “Jewish militant”.

John Ray’s report on ITV’s 10 o’clock news about the upcoming Palestinian push for statehood at the UN referred to Israeli settler Mike Guzovsky as a “Jewish militant” on the basis that Guzovsky had dogs.

I know a few Jews with dogs, but, as far as I am aware, none are militants.

Ray claimed that Guzovsky’s dogs are for self-defence due to possible Palestinian violence that could occur after the UN vote.

You can understand Guzovsky’s concern taking into account the fairly recent massacre of five members of the Fogel family, including a three month old baby, on a settlement as they lay in their beds.

Then there was the more recent massacre of eight Israelis near Eilat.

And Guzovsky is right; many attempted attacks on Israelis, including settlers, take place every day. You just don’t hear about them on the news until someone is murdered.

Guzovsky also said that people want peace and security.

Although he might hold some very extreme and totally reprehensible views, Guzovsky is no militant.

(Updated 9am on 7th September on researching Guzovsky and finding he is a member of the extremist Kahane organisation. Ray did not point this out in his report last night. Apologies for that.)

40 responses to “Introducing Mike Guzovsky, the “Jewish militant”.

  1. So anybody who has a dog now is a militant – is that right? Is that because Islam has a very stern view regarding dogs – something close to pigs and a little upscale from Jews!

  2. I’m a bit confused as to what a “militant” is now. I remember they used to describe Arthur Scargill as a militant, as well as the ladies at Greenham Common. Now they also use it to describe Palestinians who cut babies’ heads off, and Iraqis who blow up mosques. And Jews who keep dogs, apparently…

  3. There was also “Millie Tant” out of Viz!

    I don’t think she had any dogs though.

  4. Michael Goldman

    Mike Melchette
    You millitant bastard!!
    You’ve also got two dogs and pretty terrifying beasts they are!
    In all truth our spinger spaniel (Lucky zh”l) was terrified of Daniel’s (Marks) big fat cat (Honey or Kitty I forget which)
    That was one mean cat!

    • Kitty is my mother and Honey was my cat. She was a handsome feline beast who won a beauty competition while posing for the old black and white Polaroid camera on a tin dust bin, at the back of our house. Honey hated the Passover festival, when my father would feed her on kosher for Pessach pilchards, and once took the radical step of disappearing on the eve of the holiday and only returning home, a week later, after it was over.

      My grandmother Lilly Marks of blessed memory objected to our keeping a pet, though for reasons unconnected to the topic of this excellent page, and on seeing her purring contentedly while sitting on my sister was heard to utter, “I’ve never been to another Jewish house where there’s always a fat cat on a lap.” Yes she too had a way with words.

      Were Honey alive today she might well be described as a militant by the likes of Gert. In truth, she did on one occasion return home with a dead bird she had hunted for the family,mother was less than grateful and slapped her harshly, exclaiming, “Bad cat!”

      I think it was Rabbi Kahane who in a wholly different context said, “The more I meet people, the more I appreciate my dog”. Our cat was gathered unto her maker many years ago and I have acquired many wonderful friends since. I miss Honey.

      • Michael Goldman

        “Kitty is my mother and Honey was my cat. She was a handsome feline beast who won a beauty competition while posing for the old black and white Polaroid camera on a tin dust bin, at the back of our house. ”

        Is the handsome one doing the posing your mum or the cat?

  5. You can understand Guzovsky’s concern taking into account the fairly recent massacre of five members of the Fogel family, including a three month old baby, on a settlement as they lay in their beds.

    This is Millett, the ‘not-a-Zionist’ ‘journalist’ showing the balance he so adamantly demands of everyone else: clearly there’s no settler-on-Palestinian violence, oh no. Invisible through Millett’s Star of David tinted glasses.

    So your guy’s a Kahanist, huh? Aren’t they outlawed in Israel?

    Peace Now: Nearly 2 Times More Construction in the Settlements than in Israel:
    http://peacenow.org.il/eng/ConstructionReport0911Eng

    • Invisible through Millett’s Star of David tinted glasses.

      You really are quite a vile person, aren’t you?

  6. I think militant is the right word here, see the quote below from 2005!!
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/israel/etc/script.html

    MIKE GUZOVSKY, Kahanist, Tapuach: [through interpreter] I’ll tell you what I told the security service. They asked me to stop the guys here from encouraging acts of revenge against Arabs, so I said all right, not because philosophically or ideologically or religiously or practically that is not possible or it shouldn’t be done, but simply because you hear every word, every word we say. Big Brother is watching from every direction, so we won’t succeed. They said, “Only because tactically you won’t pull it off, because we’ll hear you, because we’ll stop you?” I said, “Yes, that’s the only reason.”

    I believe the day will come when secret services and the government will want Jews who are willing to risk their lives and go into Arab villages and kick them out, kill them. We have thousands of civilians with the military know-how to instigate a mega-attack against Arabs, unidentified people, like Rabin’s assassin, Yigal Amir, who can do such a deed. No matter how much the security service and the police harass us, it won’t do them any good.

  7. richardmillett

    I agree, Delta Mike. These views are vile. ITV though should have explained these views and said what he stood for instead of a report that seems to have tried to bracket all settlers like Guzovsky.

  8. A mosque attacked and fifteen Arabs killed today by militants, that ought to make Gert’s blood boil!

    No, they were it was attacked by Syrian Muslims, so that’s alright. They were murdered by Assad’s security forces, so that’s fine. Nobody will hear of them. Nobody will know their names. Who cares?

    But a settler in the West Bank has bought a dog. Now there’s a story! That’s something to write about. Perhaps we could convene the Security Council, they always seem to have time for that kind of thing.

    But what about the dead Iraqis? What about the murder in Libya? What about that mosque in Syria?

    Yes, those are internal matters, of which we do not approve. However, there are no Jews or Zionists involved, and anyway, let’s not forget that bloke in the West Bank? He is a Kahane supporter, far more dangerous than any Syrian murderers – and he has a dog for heavens’ sake!

  9. If there is a need to report militants there are far more effective militants to talk about – like those who are bombing and killing as we speak in Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan – my goodness a long list I won’t bore you with. Can someone please tell me when last a man with a dog patrol killed anybody? We see such men with dogs all the time – not the kind in the park, but the kind that says “Warning!! dog patrol”. So whats the problem with a man walking a dog around the perimeters of his home to ensure there are no militant intruders who wish to carry out a copycat serial Fogel murder? Do ITV reporters scour the UK for dog patrols to label militants? Why don’t they rather report on happenings that really have an impact on the world – like the hundreds of rockets pouring in to Israel from Gaza? Like the existential threat hanging over Israel from its militant neighbours who are hell bent on excluding Israel from this world?

    • But Sharon, there are no Jews involved in the killings in Sudan, Syria, or the mega-human rights abuses in Tibet. So it’s not news.

  10. To corroborate what Leah says. Have you noticed how the BBC as well as other channels, when referring to Jews, always portray them with beards and big black hats. The viewers must think all Jews look like that. I suppose after being subjected to stereotype Jews, what else could they show?

    • We used to be portrayed as having big noses – I guess a big black hat isn’t personal so cannot be racist!

      • As best I remember the noses I was alerted to were always male noses.

        The stereotype for the female from novels I remember was “beautiful Jewess” usually highly innocent and worth to be saved by some valiant Christian.

        I used to read each and every historical novel I could lay my hands on and thus can’t give you more detail. So you have to take my word for it that the above is the double (and very confusing) message which was common fare in post WW2 Germany.

  11. attilathecricketer

    The fella is a militant just ITV did a piss poor job of demonstrating why he should be viewed as such. I don’t fancy running into one of those dogs.
    Talking of generalisations – I recently saw a Jew refuse to partake in an institution which was Orthodox Jewish by name, rationale etc because it allowed non-Orthodox Jews to participate despite the compelling greater good (as defined by ordinary British civic standards) saying take part. That that level of obstinacy and righteousness can exist worries me – whichever religion the person belongs to – how can we have a tolerant diverse society if such a wish for exclusivity exists.

    • My local dealer in softdrinks, beer and spirits keeps a bunch of Rottweilers on his property.

      The security guys at the corporation where I worked had a bunch of German shepherds for company when they patrolled the fence.

      All these dogs were perfectly nice when one met them in areas where one had good reason to be.

      All kinds of people and/or businesses with security needs that dogs can address and probably have addressed for millennia exist but if a “settler” keeps one of these “beasts” – oh no please no, I am soooo scared.

  12. What, precisely, do you all mean by “settler”?

    • for me a “settler” is an Israeli citizen like any other Israeli citizen who is singled out by the MSM for special treatment. By now more often than not they use the word to describe people who by their judgment are unacceptable.

      This drip drip venom tactic has been very successful so that for example when 3 months old Hadas Fogel was slaughtered it came across not quite as horrendous as it would have been, had he not been a “settler” baby. After all “settlers” bring whatever happens to them onto themselves say the MSM, at least the majority of the major German ones imply it in no uncertain terms.

    • Good question. I had been meaning to object to the terms ‘settlement’, which is simply a village or a town, and ‘settler’, which is a Jew leaving in the Jewish homeland.

    • Sorry – living.

  13. To tell the truth, my question was a rhetorical one. “Settler” – like the Hebrew term “mitnachel” (מתנחל) – is used by the Left to describe a Jew living in those parts of the Land of Israel which were liberated from Jordanian or Egyptian occupation in 1967. It carries the implication that we Jews somehow came and plonked ourselves down on somebody else’s land. The Arabs here, in fact, use the term for any religious-looking Jew wearing a knitted kippa.
    BTW – I suppose I too qualify as a “settler”, as my home is in one of the newer neighbourhoods of Jerusalem that was under illegal Jordanian occupation until June 1967. And, although I don’t possess a dog, I do have two cats. Any would-be terrorist who threatens me or mine will feel the full brunt of their fury, as they scratch his eyes out.
    Guess I also qualify for the term “militant”😉

    • Sure. The meme is that Jews are white-skinned European colonialists who stole land from brown-skinned indigenous natives.
      Antisemites choose to ignore the fact that Jews are indigenous to Israel..

  14. An excellent comment by settler Shimon. The only point I might add that in the minds of many the term settler conjures up images of Europeans stealing land from the indigenous population and settling an alien country like the French in Algeria.

    Arabs/Muslims might have been born anywhere, Arafat was born in Cairo, but on arriving here are forever considered locals. A Jew can trace his lineage back twenty generations in Israel, but are seen as “settlers”.

    Returning to the subject of this blog, it may well be Guzovsky doesn’t like Arabs, but that is not a crime here yet. And anyway, isn’t freedom of expression gauged by our readiness to tolerate views that we don’t agree with or even those we consider odious?

    Still with odious, those “leaving” the Jewish homeland have a different name altogether.

  15. @Daniel Marks: “An excellent comment by settler Shimon”.

    If you mean me, thanks for the compliment. But it’s Shimona (female) not Shimon (male)😉

  16. Let’s face it – ever since Israel stopped bing the poor defensless Jewish country and became a strong nation with the ability to defend itself, we have been the bad guys! I say we because I live here and have for the past 30+ years coming here from Chingford on the 9th of October 1973. So, despite being a died in the wool left wing socialist (still) and even though I (wrongly or rightly) feel that there is no alternative to giving the Palestinians a state, and even though I think that, eventually we will have no choice but to return land taken in 1967 – I am still a millitant because I want to defend myself, my children and my grandchildren. Because I see nothing wrong in taking out a group of “freedon fighters” about to shoot a missile into an Israeli town or village. Because I will not accept the brutal slai=ughter of children in their beds ar their parents. People on both sides suffer – but the extremes of Palestinian “millitants” far outweigh those of Israel. The loss of any life is to be deplored – but does the world really expect us to turn the other cheek!

  17. Forgive spelling mistakes please – got carried away and didn’t re-read before posting

  18. @ Philip Barnea http://www.evp.co.il |
    The only way we could “return” land LIBERATED in 1967, would be by turning it over to the Jordanians, from whom we “took” it. But they don’t want it.

  19. Even assuming that what you say is correct – the real-politic of of the situation is such that at some stage, the powers that be will say ENOUGH and force us to accept a settlement. This may take a year, 5 years or even 10 years – but it will happen. I may not like it, but we have to be realistic and realize that we depend on others for our existance. Its a sad truth, but without, for example, the massive military assistance form the US – we would be is deep trouble, And it’s no use saying that the US will always be by our side – as soon as it serves their best interests they will desert us just as they deserted Mubarak in Egypt and pulled out of South Vietnam. Unfortunately, in this situation being right just isn’t good enough. Abdullah, the King of Jordan said today that he will not accept the Palestinians into Jordan, that Jordan is not an “alternative homeland” for the Palestinian refugees. The simple fact of the matter is that we are on a downward spiral from which we will find it hard to recover – and I don’t mean the economy. Isral’s position worldwide, despite the support of many Jews and non-jews is becoming increasingly untenable. Something need s to be done before it’s two late!

    • As Michael Oren before becoming ambassador during his last book tour through the US so aptly quipped: (quoted from memory)

      “As a historian I don’t predict the future I am having a hard time predicting the past.”

      It’d be wise if non-historians take that stance also. What seems to be so without alternative today may tomorrow get struck down by the law of unintended consequences.

      If the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria should one day get themselves a trustworthy government and behave reliably non-violent then will be the time to think things over anew. Until then I think any Israeli government that decides to dodge and stall is being a wise government.

      As a lawyer boss of mine once said: “one doesn’t do business with unreliable people.”

      And as to the notoriously hard task of predicting the future, if I fall into the trap, I sing this to myself:

  20. Guzovksy is a pig and a Kahanist. I recall him celebrating Rabin’s assassination 16 years ago.