I wonder if this Javier Solana goofball is none other than the Mahdi? Whether he is or not he needs a one way plane ticket to Tehran or Damascus where he can personally suck up to his masters. This guy and other Europeans like him are an utter disgrace-worse than the Islamaniacs themselves because they are traitors. They are willing to sell all of their countries to the devil and stab their allies in the back because this is what the puppet masters demand. A gutless bunch of rabble like this should be hung by their thumbs for their treason. One day they will get what's coming to them-from their erstwhile buddies. When you cuddle up to a cobra, sooner or later you get bitten. That will be the "thank you for all your help" from the Islamaniacs.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 6, 2006 8:08 PM

result for: deracinated
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | the Web

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source de·rac·i·nate (d-rs-nt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. de·rac·i·nat·ed, de·rac·i·nat·ing, de·rac·i·nates
To pull out by the roots; uproot.
To displace from one's native or accustomed environment.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at October 6, 2006 8:18 PM

We should remain ready and determined to fight terrorist activities which are based on an exploitation, a distortion, a reversal of values. We are equally determined to reject the association of Islam with terrorism.
-From Solana’s opening remarks to an Islamic conference; http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/discours/69428.pdf

If Solana’s still around in twenty years when the bill comes due for the feel-good politics of today, he will have the luxury of re-locating his assets and family members to his vacation get-away in the Caribbean. Those simpletons living in middle-class British neighborhoods like Windsor don’t have the same luxury and are taking a slightly different position on the future of Anglo-Islamic relations.

Twenty bucks says Solana lives in a gated community today.

Posted by: limes at October 6, 2006 10:30 PM

These people are an even greater threat than the hordes of Muslims infesting the west like a plague of locusts. They are the ones who keep the doors open. They are nothing less than traitors who deserve no quarter or mercy of any sort. If we are to ever deal with the issue of this ongoing invasion and colonization of our own nations, the likes of Solana, Patton, Soros, Robinson, and Sachs - along with their moronic sock-puppets such as the distinguished Imams Jorge al'Dubya (the Mahdi from West Texas), Toni Blairistani, and 'If he only had a brain' McCain must be destroyed and rendered politically powerless.

A great westerner stated it far better than I could dream of many centuries ago:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But, it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But, the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government, itself." - Marcus Tullius Cicero

The traitors must be exposed and destroyed. As long as they remain in power, there is no hope at all of recovery or restoration.

Posted by: Carolus at October 6, 2006 11:02 PM

limes writes:

"If Solana’s still around in twenty years when the bill comes due for the feel-good politics of today, he will have the luxury of re-locating his assets and family members to his vacation get-away in the Caribbean."

Sadly, you are all too correct. It's like the degenerate billionaire mayor of New York touting the virtues of gun control as he stands surrounded by security guards armed with weapons (post-1986 full-auto) denied to all law-abiding citizens of the USA. These people are nothing less than towers of treasonous hypocrisy and evil. There is no fate cruel or horrible enough for them apart from outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth. May every single one of them be sent there soon.

Posted by: Carolus at October 6, 2006 11:11 PM

I have far more respect for Ahmadingdong than I do for Javier Solana, Chris Patten, Georg Soros, and others of that ilk. They are revolting, rotten sores upon the body politic that must be excised if the nation and civilization are to be preserved. The devil you can see is far less dangerous than the one who remains hidden.

Posted by: FredIsinglass at October 6, 2006 11:22 PM

Solana MAY be more sinister than we've imagined. There's a book about him on the "FulfilledProphecy.com" website entitled "Recommendation 666." You can actually read it online. It quotes the Western European Union recommendation (with comments, of course).

Posted by: Aragorn at October 7, 2006 12:08 AM

limes-
"Twenty bucks says Solana lives in a gated community today."

Hell is also a 'gated community'.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 7, 2006 12:10 AM

Carolus and Poetcomic, thank you for the kind comments. Its hard to watch our appointees, who are well-paid to stay informed and make good decisions for the people they are supposed to represent, sell out for political expediency. In the private sector, making the wrong decision for the right reasons is a recipe for failure on a personal level. It is just not the same for the insulated classes.

The Western welfare states seem very similar to the General Motors’ of the world. Promises have been made by the insulated ones (social security, medicare) that are simply unsustainable as our society moves forward. The immigration surges make things more complicated.

GM’s solution will be simple; declare bankruptcy, screw the stakeholders, and move on. The problem for Western nations is tougher. Growing percentages of voters who depend on benefits will gain political power and reject calls for fiscal responsibility. As discussed before, tax rates on French business owners are in the 90% range and they are already leaving the Country.

The failure of our leaders represents a real threat to the modern democratic system of government that we currently enjoy. They deserve to sleep in a very special 'gated community' of their own making.

Posted by: limes at October 7, 2006 12:15 AM

It really is disheartening to see how politicians the world over seem to have one thing in common-naked self interest. In the US politicians promise the moon, get elected, then forget all about their promises. Once elected, it's all about keeping power-voters be damned. Here they are highly annoying. In Europe, the Solana types are actually dangerous with their crackpot ideas of the EU and their appeasement of Islamania. At least in the US Bush for all his flaws sees Iran as a real threat while Solana either refuses to see that or takes it lightly. Aside from throwing a net over these idiots I don't see a way to get through to them. The quality of Western leadership must be at an all time low-not a Churchill, a Roosevelt, or even a Bismarck anywhere to be found. The worst aspect of this is that we know that we're sliding into the abyss and know what awaits but are unable to stop it. If someone leaves a tombstone to the West it'll probably read: "Here lies Western civilization-dead of treachery". No doubt a crescent will be at the top of it.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 7, 2006 12:36 AM

now this is more like it Hugh. I agree it is REALLY time for the europeans that want to stop the advance of Islam in Europe to make themselves heard. But here you are with this fantastic platform…why don’t you extend it by providing a watch for our side, so we can see how others are fighting back.

Posted by: protectalbion at October 7, 2006 1:30 AM

Hugh

I wonder what qualifies you to judge someone like Mary Robinson, former High Commissioner for Human Rights (and a champion for UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR). You smear her good name, call her a menace to Western civilisation, without citing why. Do you know that Mary Robinson is a universalist and not a cultural relativist? She does not or has ever accepted the notion that collective rights (which Muslims often use to justify shar'iah in an international human rights context). Do you know that during her tenure Robinson, through rule of law projects in Muslim countries did whatever she could to marginalise the application of shariah in the mandate of her work?

You clearly have little to no understanding of her mandate or the challenges she faced in her tenure. More personal, vitriolic attacks laced with so much sarcasm and absolute bullsh**. I often wonder Hugh, how many times you have been passed over in your academic or professional career, to make you so bitter?

You malign people with a whim of the pen, while some posters here, like pavlovian dogs, salviate and nod your heads at everything you say. I will not...

Thomas Haidon

Posted by: Haidon at October 7, 2006 2:23 AM

Haidon, here are the words of your beloved Mary Robinson. Check out the ridiculous pandering and dhimmitude in this statement:

"It is important to recognize the greatness of Islam, its civilizations and its immense contribution to the richness of the human experience, not only through profound belief and theology but also through the sciences, literature and art.

"No one can deny that at its core Islam is entirely consonant with the principle of fundamental human rights, including human dignity, tolerance, solidarity and equality. Numerous passages from the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad will testify to this. No one can deny, from a historical perspective, the revolutionary force that is Islam, which bestowed rights upon women and children long before similar recognition was afforded in other civilizations. …And no one can deny the acceptance of the universality of human rights by Islamic States."

Oh, Hugh knows what he's talking about when he writes about her, all right.

Posted by: Ed_M at October 7, 2006 3:37 AM

Hugh does indeed know what he's talking about. I, for one, greatly appreciate both his efforts, and those of Robert Spencer.

Today, October 7, is the 435th anniversary of the Battle of Lepanto. On this day, let us all remember those who fought valiantly against this evil facing us, from Charles Martel onward. We do have a rich tradition of heroes - remeber them! Let us also remember the Christian brethren who have been slaughtered, dhimmified and enslaved, along with the untold millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and others who suffered similar fates under the monsterous brutality of jihad and sharia.

Posted by: Carolus at October 7, 2006 5:51 AM

Why, was it just yesterday that Thomas Haidon was grandly prepared to forgive me everything -- he announced it to the world in a posting -- and all because he thought I necessarily unreservedly approved of Tashbih Sayyed's version of Islam, and therefore that must mean as well that of Thomas Haidon, and therefore he, Thomas Haidon, was now convinced he had misread me, and that I could, therefore, now beconsidreed worthy of his, Thomas Haidon's, approval.

As to Mary Robinson, about whom I made the most glancing of remarks, a mere handful of words not even constituting one whole sentence (to wit: "the ineffable Mary Robinson (having ended up in hugely-salaried safety at the World Institute of world-conquering Jeffery Sachs -- they all do)" -- and the comments offered by others in postings above provide a small sample of Robinson's vicious and sappy worldview, and that should be enough even for Thomas Haidon. But nonetheles, when there is time much later, I will offer more on Mary Robinson, and all her works and days, in New York, on her trips to the Middle East, in Ireland, and of course in Durban - her cruel dismissal of the Israeli case, her indifference to the endless siege against the Jews of Israel, her unwillingness to listen to their case, her complete willingness to parrot the most transparent and malevolent Arab -- especialy "Palestinian" propaganda. It is known that for years she relied on one Mona Rishmawi, a "Palestinian" operative, for her views on the Arab-Israeli matter (that is, the Lesser Jihad against Israel), and Rishmawi struck gold when she set Mary Robinson to school, and in turn, was raised high by her pupil Mary Robinson.

As to the psychological analysis Thomas Haidon offers about what he takes to be my unending criticial stance toward the world -- how does one deal with amatuer psychologists, purporting to understand one from a distance of five thousand miles physically, and mentally even further? The subject of the article was Javier Solana, not Mary Robinson, though if Thomas Haidon cares to google "Mary Robinson" and "Posted by Hugh" he will find detailed criticism. Did he? Did he look to see if what I say is based on things she has said and done over many years, in a career of bias and uninterrupted viciousness when it comes to Israel? I don't think he did. I think the other day my reply to him about Tashbih Sayyed, and my repeated mockery of his Spiritual Searching that he insists on discussing and displaying over so many dozens or even hundreds of postings, offends his sense of himself (a quite hypertrophied sense of himself). Like other converts to Islam, he makes much of it, much of his wrestling with the matter, much of his bewilderment about what to do. For god's sake, it is an entirely uninteresting business. He knew little of Islam and then converted to Islam. His wife disagrees with what he did. He began, a little late, to find out more about Islam. Now he can't quite leave it (out of fear, no doubt) and so he makes up a kind of non-existent Islam -- his own private Islam -- to which he adheres and which he insists to no one in particular still makes him a "Muslim." Well, he can think six impossible things before breakfast, but I can't. I can't think even one impossible thing, and his tedious wrestling with all this simply, at this point, bores. He doesn't represent Islam. He represents only one peculiar person -- Thomas Haidon.

He further describes me as critical out of personal bitterness. I could present evidence that would blow his little theory sky-high, but for reasons that may not be obvious will not. If I am critical of many, it is because many deserve criticism. But I am not critical of all, and go out of my way to praise those who deserve praise, including Jacques Barzun, Jacques Ellul, Tomas Masaryk, Raymond Aron and dozens of others (leaving aside assorted writers). But these favorites remain overlooked by Tom Haidon. And if I criticize Khaled Abou el Fadl, Karen Armstrong, Javier Solana, John Esposito, Yvonne haddad, Carl Ernst, Michael Sells, Mark LaVine, Hamid Dabashi, Edward Said, and of course almost the entire faculty of the Columbia University Middle Eastern program (Lisa Anderson, Rashid Khalidi, Joseph Massad, e tutti quanti), and most of those sinisteer bureacrats busily constructing the E.U. (Solana, Patten, Moratinos) or the even more sinister ones at the U.N., or make fun of comical "world's-greatest-authority" Irwin Coreys of the age, such as her new benefactor and boss, the egregious Jeffrey Sachs -- well, as I list them I am more convinced than ever of the rightness of my judgment.

Tom Haidon some years ago converted to Islam. I don't know why, or when, or how. But we all know that for the past few years he has been playing out his psychodrama here at Jihad Watch. Such fascinating questions as "Am I a Muslim?" and "What Does It Mean to Be a Muslim?" and "What Should Muslims Make Islam Into" and "If I Am a Muslim, Then What Kind of Muslim Am I?" and "Do I Dare To Leave Islam" and "Even If Almost Everything About Islam Horrifies Me, Shouldn't I Still Remain to Fight the System From Within"? and other questions whose tedious discussion we are subjected to, directly or indirectly, while Thomas Haidon tries to figure Thomas Haidon out. Spare us, please.

Spare us, Thomas Haidon. Spare us more about Thomas Haidon's personal trajectory and personal travail. Those topics are not as fascinating as Thomas Haidon thinks. And Thomas Haidon should try to refrain from assuming that those who, such as I, criticize or gaily mock the things he takes so seriously could not conceivably do so out of detailed knowledge of the subject, and sober analysis, but only as a spiteful reflection of personal or professional setbacks, of the kind to leave us "bitter," or out of mental desarroi. Why? To my mind those who cannot see what is wrong with Islam are the ones whose heads need examining, and those who most deserve the psychiatrist's couch are those Infidels who freely convert to Islam -- as did the ineffable Thomas Haidon.

Not content with parading his own psycho-drama paraded before the website world, Thomas Haidon attempts to construct other psycho-dramas to explain others, including those whose criticism of Islam remains steadily implacable and apparently unanswerable except by reference to the supposed psychic promptings -- that Mr. Thomas Haidon of Auckland and the International Psychoanalytic Society, manages to tease out from perfectly intelligent, rational, based-on-the-evidence of texts and history, criticism, of Islam and also of such people as Javier Solana or, for that matter, the scarcely-touched Mary Robinson (would you like me to prepare a fullblown "Tribute" to her? That can be arranged.)

Surely, Thomas Haidon thinks, others must be just like him. (I on the other hand have never felt that Thomas Haidon was just like me). How could they not be? thinks Thomas Haidon. Surely, the reasons for their views, their behavior, must be sought in something other than a clear-eyed view of things. Surely if one is critical of so many, it cannot conceivably be because those many deserve such criticism, but because those critics surely must suffer from the same kinds of emotional, intellectual, psychic anguish that he, Thomas Haidon, so clearly enjoys wallowing in himself.

Surely, they do not.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2006 8:33 AM

There is nothing to add to this besides some other names like Georgy Soros, Marti Ahtisari (presently overbusied making one more islamic state (Kosovo) and inviting one another to EU (Turkey), Tony Blair and all North american dhimmicrat Clinton coalition. But, regarthles that, I would like to add one story on sentence

...Men who think Spain, France, Italy, England should disappear and the Brave New Market of homo economicus, the Big Market of Europe, be placed in its stead. Isn't that what it's all about? The Big Market?

Actually, its all about money (which is the same).Our nobility is our doom. In his novel "the knife" (1981), modern novelist, long standig Milosevic prowestern oponent, and present day minister of forrin office in Serbia, Vuk Draskovic, put in the mouth of one of his character this story. In 19th century Bosnia, one muslim beg (slavic not turkish) came to home of one christian (serb or croat, doesnt matter). As it was dhimmi law at that time i Bosnia imposed, every christian got to welcome and feed his muslim guest with everything he can. So muslim beg start to meal, and christian look at him with fear, hate and envy from small distance. Soon beg notice that and ask the christian:"Why do you look at me like that, you peasant?" Christian reply: whell, I tell u but only if u promise me that u will not hurt me. Beg gave his word on that, that no matter how grate insult will be, he will not harm a christian. Than man said: "I look at u, muslim beg, and I think in myself: be patient, turkish rule will not last any more. Soon, muslim rule will end." Hearing this, muslim beg LOL. Christian was amased by this reaction, and to quench his curiosity, beg said to him:"You are realy a fool, u christian. You see, I know that my ancestors was christian nobles once. And your ancestor,even than, was christian peasants. Than turks came and offer to my ancestors: convert to islam and held your proper, or die. So my ancestor convert and you can see me still be a noble man. When turkish rule end, dhimmi status will be canceled, and you will see me then dropping this turban, taking cross in my rigt hand, and pork in my left. And still I'll be a noble man, and you`ll be peasant."

Posted by: svemirko at October 7, 2006 10:07 AM

I wonder: would Mary Robinson, has she ever, could she possibly, make the same sweeping vindication of Christianity? How about Judaism?

I thought not.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at October 7, 2006 11:06 AM

Geoff: one thing that is certain is that Robinson is no lover of Christianity, or at least of Catholicism. Both she and her successor, Mary McAleese, have done everything within their power (the role of President of Ireland is largely ceremonial) to diminish and uproot the traditionally huge role of the Catholic Church in Ireland. McAleese, a supposed Catholic, even went as far as to take Communion in a Protestant church - something for which she ought to have been excommunicated. However, they succeeded. Ireland is secularizing at warp speed. Robinson is a classical elitist leftie with all the pieties of her kind, and, so far as I can see, no great merits.

Posted by: Paolo at October 7, 2006 11:35 AM

Interesting comment, svemirko. I've been thinking along these lines as well. I sometimes run into folks who seem to think that dhimmitude, despite its horrors, would be a good thing insofar that it would result in the total liquidation of the Soros', Robinsons, Chiracs, Blairs, et al in the event of a Muslim takeover. I can understand their point, which has a certain logic, but I think they are ultimately wrong - for the very reason you describe.

The thing that strikes me is how the "new class" (the ruling elite of the west) are busily positioning themselves to be the "Court Jews" for the emerging Caliphate. That's what is going on here. The western ruling elite, with all of their vast accumulated wealth and power, achieved through corruption and unaccountable evil, have already chosen sides. They will remain as overlords, serving the insterests of the coming Caliph. Hence my total despisal of them. These people are the absolute worst of the worst. They are the most loathesome creatures imaginable - deserving no mercy of any kind. There is no fate too cruel for them. All are legitimate targets. If our civilization is to survive, they must be destroyed completely, without warning or mercy of any kind. They are guilty of the sin for which there can be no forgiveness. I realize that this is a very harsh statement, and I feel somewhat uncomfortable in making it. I therefore invite Hugh and other thoughtful and insightful readers here to challenge it. Iron sharpens iron, as the scriptures say.

Nevertheless, as I think of the hundreds of thousands of mass graves dotting the former Soviet Union, the millions of victims therein, plus the millions slaughtered mercilessly by Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler and other leftist luminaries along with the ongoing obfuscation, minimization and outright denial to this very day of their crimes, I am continually reminded that those responsible for it were never called to account - and remain unaccountable to this very day. The murders of the left, whether of the National Socialist or Marxist variety, are exceeded only by those of Muslim jihadis.

Leftist utopians, the spititual and philosphical insiration for the 'new class' named above, managed to slaughter humans on an unprecedented industrial scale in a mere century (150 million or so), while Islam took 13 centuries to achieve their even greater level of bloodshed. As we stand here in 2006, the spiritual heirs of Marx and Hitler have joined hands with the heirs of Mohammed. The perfect storm has arrived. God help us all, from Hindu to Shinto to Sikh to Buddhist to Christian.

We need to proclaim ourselves te heirs of Charles Martel and El Cid on this day, the 435th anniversary of Lepamto. Let us join hands with the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Buddhists, the Jews, the Shinto, and others to shout: "WE WILL NOT SUBMIT!"

Posted by: Carolus at October 7, 2006 1:12 PM

I wonder what qualifies you to judge someone like Mary Robinson, former High Commissioner for Human Rights (and a champion for UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR). You smear her good name, call her a menace to Western civilisation, without citing why. Do you know that Mary Robinson is a universalist and not a cultural relativist? She does not or has ever accepted the notion that collective rights (which Muslims often use to justify shar'iah in an international human rights context). Do you know that during her tenure Robinson, through rule of law projects in Muslim countries did whatever she could to marginalise the application of shariah in the mandate of her work?

You clearly have little to no understanding of her mandate or the challenges she faced in her tenure. More personal, vitriolic attacks laced with so much sarcasm and absolute bullsh**. I often wonder Hugh, how many times you have been passed over in your academic or professional career, to make you so bitter?

You malign people with a whim of the pen, while some posters here, like pavlovian dogs, salviate and nod your heads at everything you say. I will not...

Thomas Haidon
---------------
Hmmmm.... oh really???

Mary Robinson presided like the bigoted leftist dog over the Durban conference, vilifying Israel, and jews, and ignoring totally, the monstrous, often repeated and mutiply committed evil sins of the so-called 'palestinians' who butcher each other and others in the name of their desire to be
of the caliphate and destroy the land of Israel.

"....You clearly have little to no understanding of her mandate or the challenges she faced..." says you, Haidon, and I find you unbearably fixed, and tenaciously stupid in these matters.

Do you remember that evil conference, that duplicitous leftist and arab attack upon Israel, and the jews and the notions of reality and facts such as the conferences conclusions arranged?

She lead the final declaration, adopted by consensus, whihc was a concentrated indictment of Israel and Israeli policy. The document asserted that the "targeted victims of Israel's brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women, and refugees" and called for "a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state ... the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation, and training) between all states and Israel." The NGO declaration also condemned Israel's "perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide." The document did not include references to Palestinian terror, or to the location of Palestinian bomb-making factories in densely populated areas. In addition, the NGO document redefined anti-Semitism to include "anti-Arab racism."

So, the next time you call others fools for listening to such as Hugh for his discussions and factual assertions- you might review the facts that pertain to such as Mary Robinson, and all the NGO's who's goal is the same nonsense as the Durban conference's list of attendees and committers of a gross set of lies and frank evil.

Mark

Posted by: mgoldberg at October 7, 2006 1:30 PM

Mark,

Mary Robinson presided like the bigoted leftist dog over the Durban conference, vilifying Israel, and jews, and ignoring totally, the monstrous, often repeated and mutiply committed evil sins of the so-called 'palestinians'

That Durban conference also largely ignored the horrible attempted genocide by Muslims in Sudan, even though certain participants tried to raise the issue.

Posted by: remote_control at October 7, 2006 2:10 PM

Thomas Haidon asks ". . . how many times you have been passed over in your academic or professional career, to make you so bitter?"

That question reminded me of Bat Ye'or's book "Eurabia" where on Page 92 it states:

Between March 28th and 30th 1977, at the University of Venice, the Euro-Arab dialog held seminars for the topic "Means and Forms of Cooperation for the Diffusion in Europe of the Knowledge of Arabic Language and Literary Civilization" resulted in :

"Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe and to find the appropriate form of cooperation among the Arab institutions that operate in this field." "The participants called for the creation of joint Euro-Arab Cutltural Centers in European capitals for the diffusion of the Arabic language and culture, and support for European institutions either at University level or other levels that are concerned with the teaching of the Arabic language and the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture. They demanded state involvement in joint cultural projets for cooperation between European and ARab institutions in "the field of linguistic research and the teaching of the Arabic language ot Europeans."

However, this teaching should not be left to Europeans.

The demand to supply European institutions and universities with Arab teachers to teach Europeans is reiterated several times in the same document, and in nearly all of them over the years.

In fact, it is no more than a cover for da'wa, which set the pro-Islamic and pro-Palestinian orientation of European universities.

It is strange that European professors whose profession is precisely teaching Arabic and Islamic culture should themselves accept their incompetence in their own field and demand to be replaced by Arab Teachers.

They even added that the teaching of Arabic should be linked to Arab-Islamic culture and contemporary Arab issues. In other words, distinguished European scholars were ceding their place to foreign Arab colleagues to teach their disciplines in European institutions and universities and to spread the propaganda. In very cautious terms, recommendation 11 called on the governments of the EC to recognixze the "necessity of cooperation between European and ARab specialists in order to present an objective picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to students and to the educated public in Europe which could attract Europeans to ARabic studies." This would end, in effect, critical thought in European public discours about Islam and the Islamic world, as European governments an universities adopted the Arab perspective on virtually all relevant issues. In order to create a perfect Euro-Arab harmony between Arab and European universities the participants emphasized the need to train European teachers of ARabic in Arab universities and institutions."

Easy to imagine there are such disgruntled academic or professionally wounded scholars out there, Mr. Haidon. Not so in this case, as Mary Robinson herself has provided ample incidents (as mentioned in comments above) proving contrary to western interests.

Posted by: miira at October 7, 2006 2:27 PM

What Bat Ye'or is describing in miira's post above is an institutionalization and concretization of the larger and more amorphous process of PC in the West -- specifically to counter the pernicious habits of "Orientalism" in Western academe, whereby Western scholars have perpetuated their study of Islam as "the Other" either through a romanticized exotic caricature or through an incorrect crypto-demonization, or both.

At least, that's the anti-Western party line among the PC MCs (Politically Correct Multi-Culturalists), who remain naively oblivious to the shoddy, corrupt and propagandistic methods of education and scholarship rampant throughout the Muslim world -- not to mention the fact that the symbolism of "the Other", of which the PC MCs are so deathly afraid (afraid not of the actual Other but of its symbolistic abuse), is a far more virulent and deadly trope among Muslims than it is now, or ever has been, in the West.

Posted by: remote_control at October 7, 2006 3:25 PM

I remember Mary Robinson, then Irish President, coming to town while I was posted abroad in a Muslim-majority country.
She gave a lecture and my ambassador was simply enthusiastic about her and what she said about Islam and dialogue of civilizations. My former ambassador is now a very high ranking official with our dhimmi Foreign Minister, Miguel A. Moratinos.
You may guess how is it that they, our dhimmies, always recognize each other and work together to destroy the fabric of our societies.
Spain is now enduring a terrible period of official dhimmitude. Really many people here disagree with that, but that's official policy.
For you to have an idea, I would tell you we (the anti-dhimmies here) rather had Solana as Prime Minister or Foreign Minister than the couple Zapatero-Moratinos. Then you may realize how negative both are.
Disgusting!

Posted by: Spanish diplomat at October 7, 2006 6:26 PM

!Peores que Solana! Es decir mucho.
Anyhow, Paolo, there is something bizarre about Robinson. She seems to be a very ambitious woman, to the point of losing all scruples, while also being susceptible to flattery. That's a dangerous combination. While she was president of Ireland, she took an official trip to Hungary, in 1992 I believe, when Hungary was not long out of the Communist grip. She said in a quote [or interview] that I read in LeMonde [maybe LeFigaro] in the fall of 1992, that she was making her trip as part of a Catholic foreign policy of the Irish republic. Since Hungary was Catholic and Ireland was Catholic she was visiting Hungary as part of Catholic solidarity.
Later on, Robinson was kicked upstairs as it were and became chairman of the UN "Human Rights" Commission [God save us!!]. In this role, as we know, she was instrumental in promoting the 2001 Durban conference. So how did she switch from being a proponent of Catholic solidarity [in 1992] to promoting Islam and Muslim rights and causes, etc. [in 2001] ???

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 7, 2006 7:26 PM

I don't know if I can quantify Moratinos' intellectual inferiority to an intellectual dwarf like Solana, but I will give an example. About ten years ago, Moratinos was the designated EU envoy to the Middle East. He made shuttle trips between Damascus and Jerusalem to bring about peace between the us and the Syrian viper, Assad Senior. Upon coming back from Damascus on one of his trips, he announced that he had heard the "drums of peace" in Damascus. Now, the statement is absurd because "drums" represent war, whereas peace would be musically represented by violins or cellos or English horns, etc. Moratinos' metaphor was so bizarre that I cannot get over it till today.

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 7, 2006 7:31 PM

"Hugh

I wonder what qualifies you to judge someone like Mary Robinson, former High Commissioner for Human Rights (and a champion for UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR). You smear her good name, call her a menace to Western civilisation, without citing why. Do you know that Mary Robinson is a universalist and not a cultural relativist? She does not or has ever accepted the notion that collective rights (which Muslims often use to justify shar'iah in an international human rights context). Do you know that during her tenure Robinson, through rule of law projects in Muslim countries did whatever she could to marginalise the application of shariah in the mandate of her work?

You clearly have little to no understanding of her mandate or the challenges she faced in her tenure."
-- from a posting by Tom Haidon above

I won't bother replying in my own words to Haidon. I will simplly reprint the article below by Daniel Mandel, written in 2001, the year in which Mary Robinson's height of fame and ill-fame was reached in that Durban lynching of Israel she arranged, under the careful tutelage of her master in all things having to do with Israel and "Palestine," a certain behind-the-scenes "Palestinian" operative named Mona Rishmawi -- and was so proud of, and how unfortunate for her, and for Mona Rishmawi, and all those who wished Israel ill that just a few days after the orgy of hate at Durban came to an end, it was followed, on September 11, something came along and spoiled the post-mortem party.

Here it is:

Something About Mary
The blindspot of UN human rights chief Mary Robinson

By Daniel Mandel

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (HCHR) is an august position in the world body. It is in fact of recent creation; it is not the product of the Charter or even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its incumbent since 1997 has been the former Irish president, Mary Robinson.

Playing favourites: Mary Robinson at the UN

Mary Robinson’s appointment is not a case of the luck of the Irish. She is a highly respected figure, a former head of state with a high reputation that saw her elected almost by acclamation. Mrs Robinson entered the Commissariat with few blots on her copybook. She used to like to say that if one wanted to know what people thought of her, they should go to the Jewish community of Dublin.

If this was her pedigree, no one could have expected the saga that has followed. One of her first acts upon assuming office was to discontinue the practice of her predecessor, Ecuador’s José Ayala-Lasso, who used to meet with both the UN regional groups and the Israeli ambassador to discuss human rights matters. As the only member-state not a member of any regional group, Israelis could only obtain information from the HCHR on this basis. These were later resumed only with tepidity and reluctance.

A portent of things to come was evident in Mrs Robinson’s response to the so-called Naqba riots in the West Bank in May 1998, coinciding with Israel’s fiftieth anniversary. The UN has never treated Israel impartially, because it is the captive of an overwhelmingly hostile membership of states. Nonetheless, the current Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has distinguished himself for depoliticising his office where the Arab-Israeli conflict is concerned, realising the abysmal indignities to which politicisation has taken the world body. Annan carefully avoided a political statement, making no snap judgements or laying of blame and calling for restraint. So did the Security Council, whose job is acting to secure international peace and security. Robinson, in contrast, pioneered a new definition of the concept of peaceful assembly and the identification of victims of human rights abuses. It boiled down to this: Jews under assault at religious sites are not victims; only rioters who attack them and are killed and injured by police are.

"I have learnt with deep regret of the incident which took place yesterday," said the High Commissioner, "during which at least eight Palestinians were reported killed and several hundred injured by Israeli forces during demonstrations in the Occupied Territories. I remain profoundly concerned by the continuing deterioration of the human rights situation in the occupied territories and call upon the government of Israel to respect the right of peaceful assembly, to avoid the excessive use of force and ensure the full compliance of its police, security and military forces with the Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949 and with United Nations guidelines on the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials. My thoughts today are with the families of the victims."

Robinson thus follows a time-honoured practice of regarding all Israeli preventive or retaliatory action as equivalent or worse than the violence that prompts it, in the odd case (of which this is not an instance) where the original violence is acknowledged to have taken place.

There are various ways of accounting for the peculiar standards to which Israel is held by the UN, most coming down simply to the Arab parties and their allies having the numbers in the quasi-representative General Assembly. There is a further aspect where Robinson is concerned. Her positions are predicated on a doctrinaire assertion, virtually amounting to an article of faith, that Israel is, or should be subject to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 regarding occupied territory. Israel’s High Court and many international law experts have always rejected this proposition since both the Gaza and West Bank were captured in defensive wars from illicit occupiers with no recognised claim to the territory, Egypt and Jordan respectively. Such territory belongs to no existing state and so the occupation of foreign soil is not deemed to be at issue. But that has not cut ice with Mrs Robinson.

A further sample of what treatment Israel and Jews could receive from the High Commissioner occurred last year when the reactionaries who dominate the Iranian government arrested a number of Jews on charges of espionage for Israel. The accused were subsequently convicted by an in camera tribunal, utilising nothing other than forced confessions and the verdicts in the main upheld by an appeal court. The charges were both spurious and absurd, unless one believes that shoe-makers and school teachers from a persecuted minority in a tightly controlled society have access to government secrets.

Mrs Robinson at first took an interest. However, once it had been put to her that the arrest and trial was an internal Iranian matter, not a politically inspired piece of persecution, she accepted the Iranian position thereafter without demur. It was hard to elicit a statement from her in the wake of the predictable guilty verdicts. Charged with overseeing human rights by member states, Robinson declined to send observers to the appeal trial, nor would she recognise it as a genuine issue of Jewish concern.

She sought to paper over this startling omission by recourse to the general human rights situation in Iran which, she admitted, involved a number of persecuted groups: not only Jews, but Bahais, democrats and trade unionists as well. Mrs Robinson seems to be saying that, since her secretariat is doing precious little about Iranian Bahais and trade unionists, it simply follows it should be similarly inert where Jews are concerned.

Moreover, while Nelson Mandela likewise criticised Western expressions of concern, Mandela subsequently had the good grace to admit that the assurances of a fair trial which Teheran conveyed to him personally, and on which he based his stance, were dishonoured. Mrs Robinson remains unapologetic.

Mrs Robinson also revealed a biased hand in the matter of the Geneva Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. This august body has never been convened in its history other than in June 1999 when apparently the Israeli construction of apartment blocks on empty Jewish-owned land in east Jerusalem was apparently deemed as a threat to international human rights unprecedented in the history of the UN. The Conference was curtailed almost upon convening when saner minds prevailed and its convenor, Switzerland’s Walter Gyger, counselled restraint and adherence to non-politicised terms of reference. The High Commissioner, represented by a subordinate, flouted the terms of reference in the following fantastic statement.

"the success of this meeting will be judged by the world community according to the extent to which it facilitates and informs the convening of an international conference of the High Contracting Parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention … It has been confirmed time and again by all contracting parties to the Convention, except one, that the Convention does apply de jure to the Occupied Palestinian Territories[sic] ... To meet that challenge, legal and diplomatic mechanisms under the United Nations Charter are available, in addition to those created in connection within [sic] the Convention itself."

In other words, the High Commissioner called for the imposition of sanctions and measures of collective self-defence (in effect, multilateral military intervention of the kind authorised by the Security Council against Iraq). Furthermore, it was added, trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity "remain an option for serious consideration".

The audacity of this statement was equalled only by the disingenuousness of her response to censure from the Swiss and many other quarters. Her letter to the Swiss chairman, combining legalism and pique in equal parts, defended the statement on the ground that the terms of reference were unclear and the participation of her office could not have taken place without reference to the resolutions of the General Assembly (which are wholly non-binding and have no legal force).

Any doubts that Mrs Robinson is mired in partisanship were dispelled earlier this year when she appointed Mona Rishmawi to a senior position within her Commissariat. Rishmawi has likened Israeli practices in the West Bank and Gaza to those of Nazis and is a long time activist of al-Haq, the Palestinian advocacy organisation promoting a Palestinian agenda couched in terms of human rights.

Then came November’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority during the riots that even Palestinian officials now admit are orchestrated. She went, by her own admission, to "hear" the Palestinians but to "put points to [the Israelis]." These are the terms of someone who has clearly made up her mind before arriving. Mrs Robinson then brazenly impugned the impartiality of her high office by surrendering to Palestinian demands that she cancel meetings with Israel’s democratically-elected opposition figures, a decision so fawning and delinquent that other Israelis, including acting Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, declined to meet with her.

Her report on her visit might have been dictated in Gaza. Mrs Robinson assumes Israeli aggression and wrongfulness in the spate of violence, but she has been saying things like that before she ever set foot in the country. Large sections were given over to regurgitating Palestinian grievances, no matter how subjective, including anger at those who have dared to allege that Palestinian children are deliberately dispatched to scenes of violence. The stoning of Jewish worshippers at Jerusalem’s Western Wall and the destruction of Joseph’s Tomb and a Jericho Synagogue receive barely a reference, but after meeting with Moslem and Christian clerics, she called on Israel to respect and protect religious sites.

But, for those who have followed her progress, none of this is any longer a surprise. From the outset, Robinson has politicised human rights issues in the Middle East with a convert’s fervour. In meetings with officials of UN Watch, a respected body monitoring UN adherence to its own Charter, she is stand-offish, circumspect and correct.

Each and every complaint submitted to Robinson has been rejected. Quizzed, for example, on the reference to Palestine as a state amongst many she has visited, Robinson dismisses this as convenient short-hand. By this yardstick, Robinson’s next visit to Lhasa (assuming she is ever allowed in) will be described as a visit to the sovereign state of Tibet.

UN Watch’s Michael Colson opines, "She does not exercise the kind of restraint the Secretary-General exercises. Mary Robinson, as far as I am concerned, has come close to violating the Charter." Even the "surprisingly even-handed" speech she recently gave outlining the actual chronology of the Palestinian violence, which demonstrated that Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount did not originate it, seems to have been a one-off. Rumour has it that the speech was the brainchild of a previously undetected impartial staffer.

I wonder what the Jewish community of Dublin think of her now."

I don't know what the Jewish community of Dublin "think of her now." I know what all sensible people should think of her, wherever they live, and whatever religion, race, or bowling league they believe in or belong to. Mary Robinson should disgust them. She disgusts me. She should disgust, but apparently does not, that troubled soul Tom Haidon. Beato lui.

Posted by: Hugh at October 7, 2006 8:00 PM

If, after the article by Daniel Mandel above, Tom Haidon still can't figure out why I was so mean to Mary Robinson with my dozen words about her, I offer him yet another critical view, an excerpt from an article that appeared on the U.N. in "OUTPOST," published by Americans For A Safe Israel, and findable on-line:

"Then there is Mary Robinson, the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose commission, as already noted, found suicide bombing (if Israel was the target) compatible with human rights. Robinson was the driving force behind the Orwellian "World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance" and presided in Durban over what writer Michael Rubin calls "an intellectual pogrom against Jews and Israel." Robinson's main worry is not Muslim terrorism but "Islamophobia," a sin denounced at Durban, and used to silence any intelligent discussion of the political ideology of Islam.

While Robinson has never evinced the slightest interest in terrorist murders of Jews, Rubin notes that Robinson also initiated the drive for the UN to investigate the so-called Israeli massacre in Jenin (now known as "the massacre that never happened"). Far from being worried about Arab terror, Robinson has been instrumental in financing it. She was resident of Ireland for seven years (and in 1996 of the European Union), a period in which the European Union poured money into the Palestinian Authority, much of it siphoned off to those organizing anti-Israel terror attacks. The documents proving this were found by Israel in its raid on Arafat's Ramallah headquarters. Needless to say, Robinson has never called for an investigation of this misuse of EU aid, or of Arafat's habit of siphoning off millions of dollars from that aid into his personal slush fund. Rubin notes that Robinson "has done more than any other international official to demonstrate that international courts, commissions and agencies are more about politics than ethics, human rights or morality, and therefore should never have the legitimacy of U.S. endorsement."

Posted by: Hugh at October 8, 2006 1:30 AM