Among the organizations that have been thoroughly penetrated (much as Communists used to penetrate certain labor groups) by what should be called the Islamintern (on the model of the Comintern of yore) is the United Nations. It is now the center of Muslim power in the world; it is no accident that an absurdly disproportionate amount of attention is given, in its corrupt halls, to the little matter of "Palestine" (and of course its subsidiary organizations also devote much of their time to this matter, which the Arab and Muslim bloc present as the most important, central, most horrifying injustice of the age -- indeed, of any age.

This is no accident. The Arab states set out systematically, after the defeat of 1967, to use all the non-military means that remained at their disposal -- chiefly money (for bribery of diplomats, journalists, national leaders), and propaganda. The money was first spent to dissuade the countries of Black Africa, where Israel had had a very successful aid effort, into breaking ties with Israel. Some countries did so at once, others after offers were made that could not be refused. A good deal of money changed hands. Thus, in the U.N., to the power of 21 Arab states, and the Communist voting bloc, directed from Moscow, there was added the voting bloc of black African countries. The next redoubt to be conquered were the countries of western Europe. That assault had to await the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The ballyhoo over the "oil weapon" in 1973-1974 made people think there such a weapon really existed. It did not; it never did (for a wonderful analysis, see J. B. Kelly, Arabia, the Gulf, and the West); the OPEC oil states were, and remain, economic wrecks, the beneficiaries of an accident of geology who are still hopelessly dependent on oil (not one Muslim oil state has managed to create an economy that is not entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues); demand for oil is not inelastic, as was once believed. And at any time, merely by PUTTING A TAX ON GASOLINE, the United States could drive down the amount of revenues that can be used to build mosques and madrasas world-wide. (This whole matter of a non-existent oil weapon, incidentally, was well-analyzed by Douglas Feith, now in the Pentagon, in an article in Policy Review some years ago). Morris Adelman of MIT and Eliahu Kanovsky were among those oil economists who were never fooled.

But if there never was an "oil weapon," there was, and is, a "money weapon" -- OPEC revenues put at the service of Jihad. And that oil money, which helped to fund A. Q. Khan and the "Islamic bomb" and the terrorists who kill Hindu and Sikh peasants in Kashmir, and attacked the Indian Parliament building; that money, which has helped to fund the radicalizing of those Muslims still fighting the Orthodox Reconquista in the Balkans. A few days ago in Kosovo, a veritable pogrom took place, with dozens of churches torched and many Serbs murdered and thousands driven out, by tens of thousands of Albanian Muslims in mobs all over the province. This was blandly described, in direct contradiction to all of the evidence, by much of the world meda as "communal violence" (the same preposterous phrase is trotted out when Muslims in northern Nigeria burn churches and kill Christians, or when the same activity takes place in the Moluccas, or Sulawesi -- always "communal violence," never the Muslim violence against non-Muslims that, in fact, it is). That same oil money has helped to fund the Islamic groups who have made life hell for Christians in Indonesia, where at least 2,300 churhces were destroyed in 2003 alone, according to the Barnabas Fund (some estimates go as high as 4,000 churches destroyed). And of course, much of that money went to fund the Jihad against Israel at the U.N. and in the media, not only through public relations campaigns, but by buying people's pens, voices, and even -- as happened in London -- directe payments to those who would write letters denouncing Israel to the press (there is testimony from some of those who received the smiling checks from the Kuwaiti Embassy, for example).

The highest reaches of the U.N. have been penetrated by the Islamintern. These involve not only Arab and Muslim diplomats, but members of the Administration. Particularly useful have been non-Muslims. One thinks, for example, of the man who is the "Chief Speech Writer" for Kofi Annan (a few days ago he signed a letter to the New York Times as "Director of Communications"). And who is this man, Edward Mortimer, who fashions the words, and hence the thoughts, of Kofi Annan, and who writes the "communications" from the U.N. Secretariat to the outside world? Why, Edward Mortimer has distinguished himself for three things. One, it was Mortimer whom, as a correspondent in Teheran at the time of Khomeini's triumphant appearance, began his despatch, "This is quite the most glorious morning in the history of mankind, to quote Charles James Fox." Now Mortimer had written on Islam; he knew, or should have known, that Khomeini was a black reactionary (for an example of Khomeini's anti-Muslim views, see the speech of his, delivered long before he rose to power, in Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim, p. 11-12). Iranians now suffering under the Khomeinian nightmare should, when the current regime falls, not forget Edward Mortimer and his ilk.

The second thing to know about this man, who is also billed as a "Senior Advisor" to Kofi Annan, is that his hatred for Israel has been a constant. Now, if there is one theme that the real antisemites enjoy, when it comes to Israel, it is that "Zionism" and "Nazism" were in cahoots, actually collaborated with each other. The unsurpassed viciousness of this charge need not be noted here; what is of note, however, is that a book by one Lonnie Brenner makes this charge, and the book received the enthusastic praise of....Edward Mortimer. Indeed, so enthusastic was his review, that Brenner used it as the introduction for a new edition of his calumnious work.

And the third thing to know about Edward Mortimer is that, just before coming to the U.N., he was up to his neck in promoting that useful instruement of Arab Muslim policy, the so-called "Euro-Arab Dialogue," that helps explain Europe's current fear, desarroi, and dismay. For European elites have allowed into their countries millions of Muslim immigrants who, for the most part, cannot and will not integrate, and whose presence makes the lives of the non-Muslim indigenes far more unpleasant, expensive (think of the security costs alone, not to mention the costs of fighting crime committed by those who, in the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, have few inhibitions about rape and looting when Infidels are the victims; it is, after all, only just). What began as a silly attempt to recycle petro-dollars (there was no need to buy Arab Muslim goodwill; they had nowhere else to shop, and Europe remains their combination funhouse and brothel), and as an even more foolish attempt to set up a counterweight to "America" -- forgetting that "America" is part of the same Western civilization, and the Arab states with whom this phony, one-way, act of civilizational betrayal known as the Euro-Arab Dialogue, is supposed to take place, are in fact the moving forces in Islamic civilization, one that, by its very tenets, is resolutely opposed, intellecutally and morally, to everything that is most distinctive, and most attractive, about Western civilization). They are quislings; if you seek their monument, look around the cities of Western Europe. Or at the votes in the U.N. And among their ranks, sits the man who makes a link, and not just a rhetorical one, between Nazis and Zionists, who praises the reacionary Khomeni to the Charles-James-Fox skies, who pushes through the Euro-Arab dialogue for the ever more craven surrender of Europe's quidditas for...for what, exactly? The right to buy OPEC oil? The right to have millions rather than tens of millions of Muslims settle in, and take over, many places in Western Europe? The right to proudly do everything conceivable to abandon Europe's rescuer of last resort, America, when it alone is aware, even if dimly, of what the Jihad is, and is prepared to fight against it, and retains, in regards to Israel, some modicum of decency and sense?

There he is, at the very summit of the U.N. Unlike Mary Robinson, who was simply the marionette of her influential, Svengali-like "Palestinian" advisor, one Mona Rishmawi (which explains her vicious Durban performance, and her preposterous interventions, including her attempt to claim that the "Cairo [islamic] Declaration of Human Rights" had anything in common with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

There he is, the embodiment of pro-Khomeini, anti-Islamic, Euro-Arab Dialogue, at the very summit of the U.N. hierarchy, putting the words in Annan's mouth. By comparison with the Arab Muslim effort, Soviet attempts to infiltrate the U.N., and manipulate its proceedings, were laughably maladroit and obvious.

As the French say, Ca en dit long.

Certainly the UN is a tool of dictators, Islamists, and failed socialists. Structured in a way to allow the small and weak to thwart majority rule, its' relevance fades with each silly resolution. The UN should be relocated from New York to a more suitable location in Zimbabwe, Cuba, or Syria. A more disappointing organization I cannot imagine.

Hugh- Once again an awesome description of our present troubles. It's not wonder that I both fear and loathe the U.N. Thanks again for the informatio.

"We are deeply troubled by this action by the government of Israel," said America's UN Ambassador John Negroponte. "We didn't think it contributed to the peace process."

There is a strong possibility that the Ambassador has learned to use the same tactic that jihadists use (both Muslim, and non-Muslim alike)...and that is, saying one thing and meaning the opposite.