| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
With Jamie Glazov at FrontPage:
Bat Ye'or: Eurabia represents a geo-political reality envisaged in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between, on the one hand, the nine countries of the European Community (EC)which, enlarged, became the European Union (EU) in 1992 and on the other hand, the Mediterranean Arab countries. The alliances and agreements were elaborated at the top political level of each EC country with the representative of the European Commission, and their Arab homologues with the Arab League's delegate. This system was synchronised under the roof of an association called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) created in July 1974 in Paris. A working body composed of committees and always presided jointly by a European and an Arab delegate planned the agendas, and organized and monitored the application of the decisions.The field of Euro-Arab collaboration covered every domain: from economy and policy to immigration. In foreign policy, it backed anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism and Israel's delegitimization; the promotion of the PLO and Arafat; a Euro-Arab associative diplomacy in international forums; and NGO collaboration. In domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations -- a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.
Eurabia is the future of Europe. Its driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members -- from all major European political parties -- active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. The creation of this body and its policy follow the 23 resolutions of the "Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples", held in Cairo in January 1969. Its resolution 15 formulates the Euro-Arab policy and its all-embracing development over thirty years in European domestic and foreign policy.
It stated: "The conference decided to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform for promoting support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance." In the 1970s, pursuant to the wishes of the Cairo Conference, national groups proclaiming "Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance and the Arab peoples" appeared throughout Europe. These groups belonged to different political families, Gaullists, extreme left or right, communists, neo-Nazis -- but they all shared the same anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. France has been the key protagonist of this policy, ever since de Gaulle's press conference on 27 November 1967 when he presented France's cooperation with the Arab world as "the fundamental basis of our foreign policy".
FP: Is Europe's dependence on Arab oil a predominant factor in its pro-Arab policy?
Bat Ye'or: No, I don't think so. Arab leaders have to sell their oil; their people are very dependent on European economic, health and technological aid. America made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. The oil factor is a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis. The policy was already conceived in the 1960s. It has strong antecedents in the French 19th century dream of governing an Arab empire and the exploitation of antisemitism to strengthen Arab Muslim-French solidarity against a demonized common enemy. Eurabia is not only a web of various agreements covering every field. It is essentially a political project for a total demographic and cultural symbiosis between Europe and the Arab world, where Israel will eventually dissolve. America would be isolated and challenged by an emerging Euro-Arab continent that is linked to the whole Muslim world and invested with tremendous political and economic power in international affairs. The policies of "multilateralism" and "soft diplomacy" express this deepening symbiosis. The Euro-Arab agreements are merely the tools for the creation of this new "continent." Eurabia is also based on the vision of Christian-Muslim reconciliation and has been strongly advocated by religious Christian bodies.
FP: For a moment, France looked like it was totally lost. But it seems to have adopted a new foreign policy, more oriented toward Europe. What is your view of this?
Bat Ye'or: France and the rest of Western Europe cannot change their policy anymore. Their future is Eurabia. Period. I don't see how they can reverse the movement they set in motion thirty years ago. Nor do Eurabians want to modify this policy. It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it. This is the source of the strong anti-American feeling in Europe and of the paranoiac obsession with Israel, two elements that form the cornerstone of Eurabia. The new French orientation toward Europe indicates that France will work within Europe, and particularly with the new Eastern member states of the European Union, to convince them to forgo their Atlanticist vision and reorient their alliances toward the Arab Muslim world. This was French policy in the 1960s when Paris became the advocate of the Arab cause in the European Community. Until 1971, France had been isolated in the EC in its anti-Israel stance. European Community critics accused it of bias toward the Arab world. Faced with the oil crisis, the nine EC countries -- under French and German leadership -- unified their views regarding the Middle East conflict and this generated the Euro-Arab Dialogue's overall development.
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at September 21, 2004 6:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I still believe she is too pessimistic. Europe's fall to Islam can still be avoided. It won't be easy, and it won't be pretty, but it can be done.
Posted by: Ali Dashti![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 21, 2004 6:15 AM
OT, but related to this site.
Aid and Comfort to the Enemy:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20040920.shtml
Posted by: Gary at September 21, 2004 7:15 AM
The question Mr Dashti is "how"? and by "whom"?...even groups who have gained popularity in elections ( I dont mean the pro Nazis in Germany) seem to be ineffectual.
The classic example is Italy's "Northern league"......this political body is only "just" holding out what seems to be to the inevitable.
Posted by: Joe Bananas...in Pyjamas at September 21, 2004 7:35 AM
Ali Dashti: How can it be done? Give us a hint.
I get the impression that this pro-Arab dialogue and anti-Israel stance is a form of Nazism in another guise.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 21, 2004 7:57 AM
This is an important interview with Bat Ye'or in today's FrontPageMagazine. It is a prelude to her new book on Eurabia due out later this year. Her comments are prescient and can be equally applied to certain elements inside the Bush administration who have not understood that we have been engaged in a Fourth World War with jihadist islamists fomented with the financial support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, an alleged important "swing" oil producer in OPEC whose importance is now diminsihed in the light of vastly ramped up oil demand largely arising out of China's development as an economic power in this century. It would be most useful for those in whatever administration is formed after November 2nd to bring in Bat Ye'or during her expected book tout early in 2005 for consultations with the National Security Council staffs and the cognizant Congressional Intelligence and National Security Committees.
She is our best "Churchillian" when it comes to understanding that we in the West must resolve to vanquish Islamism and not to succumb, as the EU has to the blandishments of corrupt ruler governed xenophobic Islamist states and Kingdoms across the Mediterranean "lake" and in the Persian Gulf region. Whether it's the misperception that the Islamic dominated region in a great crescent arc from the eastern Atlantic sea frontier of Morroco through the Arab heartland to the Gulf region with a population of over 350 million, represents a significant economic trading "opportunity" (the region according to UN development reports has the aggregate GDP of Spain) or whether it is the thinly disguised primordial Jew hatred of medieval Europe with regard to The EU's pro-Palestinian stances. In either case, as Bat Ye'or has told me and others, the U.S. is the world's last best hope for combatting Islamism
at September 21, 2004 8:10 AM
Voltaire: Well, it can ONLY be done by expelling many, if not most, of the Muslim immigrants already in Europe. I know it isn't pretty, but there is just no other way. Unless this happens, there are only two other probable outcomes:
1. Europe does indeed transform into "Eurabia". The Islamic world uses Europe's accumulated wealth and nukes to threaten the entire rest of the non-Muslim world, from Russia and Israel to India and the USA. The latter will be forced to destroy Europe, or be subdued themselves.
2. Europeans widely come to view Liberal Democracy as a failure, and too weak to handle the Islamic threat. As in Germany in the early 1930s, they will cry out for a Strong Man to "deal with" the problem. And He will step forward. There is never any shortage of Strong Men once the opportunity is there. And He WILL deal with "the Muslim problem", in Europe's traditional way of getting rid of disliked minorities: By killing them, and possibly other immigrants, too.
In both these two last cases, European democracy will be lost. Some may hope for a universial, moral collapse of Islam as a third alternative. We should hope for this, and support ex-Muslims working to achieve this. But we have to prepare for the worst.
Posted by: Ali Dashti at September 21, 2004 8:37 AM
Ali Dashti: what do you do with native born Europeans who have converted to Islam? How can you expel them when they are already citizens? Or do you just strip all Euro-born muslims of their citizenship?
Unfortunately I think that outcome number 1 is more likely to happen. Politicans are too stupid to expel muslims now living there, especially since they invited them in the first place.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 21, 2004 10:10 AM
i don't think there will be salvation for nations that make alliances with the moslem states:
they are digging their own grave.
if the usa is the "last best hope" in combatting
islam:
we are in BIG TROUBLE.
i don't see the usa taking steps
to deal with the growing problem within the country much less elsewhere..
fortunately there is Hope but it is for the individual.
"reformation of islam" is a false hope.
Posted by: forrest shalom at September 21, 2004 10:36 AM
A lot can be done by even just starting talking about it. Voltaire talks about expelling Muslims from Europe, while the truth is that even those public figures who dare to propose better integration of immigrants are labeled extreme-rightists, racists and Islamophobes. We are still very, very far from objectively, publicly discussing the present and future position of Islam in Europe. Part of the problem is that most Europeans are still so sure Islam is no threat to democracy. They may change their minds when they realize that it is, but that may be too late (because, as long as Muslims are minority, PC demands that they be cherished and adored whatever way they practice their faith - or their politics). The sooner the political conflict is out in the open the better (instead of dealing with the whole thing as a race issue, or a majority-minority; West-non-West; colonial-postcolonial issue, if dealing with it at all). There is still hope that when realizing what the stakes are, even many immigrants with Muslim background may want to defend democracy against Islamist totalitarianism. We just must get rid of the multiculti nationalist ideology that declares "assimilation" an ugly word.
Posted by: Scandie at September 21, 2004 1:25 PM
Acknowledging the need for immigration controls and, when justifiable, deportation, NOW is essential, I think, to avoid precisely the kind of racist bigotry that folks in Europe rightfully worry about.
Acting now with reason, and sound knowledge, that the justification for ceasing immigration and initiating deportation is based in IDEOLOGY and NOT IN RACIAL CATEGORIES of any sort, will mitigrate racist hatred that will surely rear its head as these necessary measures are taken. But, I think the key to success is early action based on sound policy: read Hugh Fitzgerald, Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or and objectively analyze the causes of the obvious social problems created by large Muslim communities in Europe, and, more importantly, try to see beyond the horizons, confront the demographic trends, and the horrors that flourish in the Islamic belief-system, and how these horrors threaten Europe's cultural and political future.
There is a nasty strain of 'biological racism' in the heritage of European fascism; I would not be surprised if it sprouts up here and there in the context of the Islamic assault on Europe. Hence, the need for sensible, well articulated policy as soon as possible.
In this context traditional political categories do not apply. Europeans pride themselves on education, creativity, flexibility, open-mindedness...well, let it fly. The box is not a box, it is something else. What it is? I am not sure myself. That is something for us to figure out, but, whatever it is, it threatens the very existence of what we know as European or Western culture and our poltical systems...a la larga, a la larga. Put on those historical glasses and have a look. It ain't pretty, my friends.
Posted by: JTF at September 21, 2004 1:45 PM
the problem is, accepting european democratic values and willingness to integrate are not accepted as immigration criteria, for that is considered to be cultural imperialism...
Posted by: Scandie at September 21, 2004 2:08 PM
First, what is 'cultural imperialism'? The very concept is vague, subject to interpretation, and pregnant with uncertain political and moral connotation. What is more germaine
to social responsibility and activism, discussing interpretation of a vague concept or taking concrete steps necessary to avoid cultural exitinction?
But, there are 'moral grounds' for denying the right of Muslims to immigrate and for deportation in certain circumstance. One need not bother with the whole ludicrious argument of contrasting cultural norms: the status of the Infidel in Islamic ideology, the denial of rights and privileges to the Infidel, traditions of violence and domination...The whole 'cultural debate' is a nonstarter. There is not sufficient common ground for social engagement: hence, adios Islam.
Posted by: JTF at September 21, 2004 2:22 PM
All things are possible. I agree that Ye'or is too pessimistic about Europe's future. Spending her adult life studying the vast, long-term extinction of Judaism and Christianity in Muslim lands will have that effect on you.
One would have thought, a la Ye'or and the Muslims, that wiping out European Jewry would have been impossible, and yet the Germans showed that it was more than possible.
The end will be either forcible expulsion or, if it comes to it, and if the Europeans ever get their balls back, a Muslim holocaust. It almost certainly won't come to that, since the vast majority of Muslims will favor immigration, and unlike the Jews, that option will be open to them. But dhimmi/Islamic relations will inevitably be such by that point that their expulsion won't be entirely bloodless.
Posted by: scissor at September 21, 2004 2:39 PM
Scandie's basic point is an important one. We do not want to be viewed as "cultural imperialists". I'll give the Islamists credit for one thing, they "love" their way of life, such as it is, while we, on the other hand, are self-loathing (or at least liberals and leftists are). For a few generations now we have been taught that every culture in the world has equal legitimacy and we have been taught to hate our imperialistic past, without critically acknowledging the benefits of imperialism to those who have been the alleged "victims" of it. This is a key core attitude that has to change in the western world. We have to believe that our ways (or at least our core beliefs of democracy and capitalism) are right for all people. George Bush said it better than anyone (pararphrasing here) "....Freedom is God's gift to all men."
Posted by: Buck at September 21, 2004 3:04 PM
Certainly we have to believe in our core values. Part of the problem is that there are many that teach the young that our core values are a lie. We find that the universities are INFESTED with these people. They are now training teachers producing teaching materials to be used in secondary and elementary schools. New generations of young Americans are being taught that we are the world's worst creatures. No, our self-confidence can not come back under these conditions.
Posted by: epg at September 21, 2004 3:09 PM
One more principle:
Given the practices of taqiyya and kitman, one should presume that dialogue with Islamic advocates is NOT possible. Dialogue is potentially dangerous and destructive if one party lies or is deceptive: there is no basis for argument and rational discussion. Hence, anyone, like Tariq Ramadan, who claims to present Islam for 'engagement' with the West must prove first that he is not practicing taqiyya, and the burden of proof should be set high given the stakes of the debate. Then, after that condition is satisfied one might still refuse dialogue with Islam on the grounds that Islam as a belief-system and ideology denies nonnegotiable rights and privileges of 'Infidels'; it seems the only 'Muslims' one could dialogue with are folks like Irshad Manji, who are obviously not engaged in taqiyya and who outright reject those principles, beliefs and texts, that are inconsistent with Infidel rights.
Posted by: JTF at September 21, 2004 3:40 PM
I'm not sure an Islamic Reformation is the answer. A Christian Reformation that begins by telling the PeeCees to get off would be far more desirable--a spiritual renewal across the borders of Christian society like the one that initially allowed Europe to overtake Islam back in the 16th-17th centuries when Islam had the three superpowers of Ottoman Turkey, Safavid Persia, and Mughal India.
Also, I don't think Irshad Manji is engaging in taqiyya: although she's a liberated lesbian (which is why the left loves her), she has too many senitmental attachments to the traditions of her youth (like a lot of other people, I might add), and thus won't see Islam for what it is.
Posted by: Kepha1 at September 21, 2004 9:42 PM
I saw a program last night about Sophia Loren, (do you know that she will soon be 70?) She is a wonderful, still beautiful, very sexy woman. What if she had been born in an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia? If Europe goes Islamic, what will happen to all the potential Sophia Lorens, Brigitte Bardots, etc etc.
Sophia had it tough being born illegitimate and in poverty in Italy in the 1930's, but at least she could find her way out of it to become a glamourous and highly popular movie star. What if she had been born in Saudi Arabia?
Europeans please think about this.
Posted by: Voltaire at September 22, 2004 2:06 AM
it's time we did something,before its too late and i am not advocating mass murder.
Posted by: alien_tensor at September 22, 2004 10:20 AM
The prospects of avoiding Eurabia are indeed grim. If any European leader questions this policy he is demonized in the media as a racist and a Nazi. The EU itself with threaten sanctions until this leader is broken. Anyone remember Joerg Haider? The same goes for Jean Marie Le Pen.
This is the course set since the "enlightenment" and its heirs cannot and will not admit the significance religion plays in peoples lives. It is entrenched in their idealogy that a pluralistic multicultural society can work despite every case study from the past showing it as a failure. The spirit of Europe is now broken thanks to the media and public education. Europeans (as well as most other westerners) do not care if they raise another generation in their likeness or even if they raise another generation at all.
There now exists a moral and religious void and this works to the advantage of Muslims to fill it as the Christian churches have largely capitulated to the modern world. The Second Vatican Catastrophe played a pivotal role in this.
Short of a miracle Eurabia will be the future. However, miracles have happened in the past. All we can do is hope and pray.
Posted by: Lorenz at September 22, 2004 11:00 AM
One of the main tools at our disposal in avoiding the Eurabia fate is information. And by information I didn't mean the old means of communicating information via the PC news media but via sites like this. Without the internet I would never have discovered amazing and informative books like "Onward Muslim Soldiers" or "Why I Am NOT A Muslim" Bookshops in the Uk are usually run by liberal-leftists and I would never have found the above books in them .Without the internet I would never have realised that my friends and I weren't the only ones who were worried by the growing numbers of muslims in the West.
DhimmiWatch & Jihadwatch and the knowledge they and it's posters have given me have helped me to convince several friends to view islam as a grave and present danger. If I had just watched the BBC or Channel 4 I would never have known the extent of the global jihad or the goals of the muslim deathcult. We must convince more and more people to visits these sites, to go to Amazon to buy books that the PC brigade would rather keep hidden, to email the parasites at the BBC and force them on the defensive over their pro-Islamic bias. islam is like some foul, primeval organism that grows in the dark. Shine a bright light on it and it convulses and starts to shrink. We have to help focus that light on islam.
at September 22, 2004 7:50 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)