The pioneering and world-renowned historian explains the contemporary geopolitical situation far more accurately and comprehensively than career diplomats and mainstream Western foreign policy and counterterror analysts.
“Eurabia and the selling out of Israel: An interview with Bat Ye’Or [sic],” by Niram Ferretti, L’informale, December 3, 2017:
Few authors in the last decades have stirred a heated debate like Bat Ye’Or [sic]. To her work we owe the entrance into the market of ideas of terms such as “dhimmitude” and “Eurabia”, both essential to understand the political nature of Islam, its treatment of non-Muslim minorities and the political-economic axis built in the Seventies between Europe and the Arab world. It is due to this scheme which developed in phases and culminated with the oil crisis of 1973, that Europe sold out Israel to Arab interests. With clear precision, indicating one after the other episodes, irrefutable documents and public declarations, Bat Ye’Or [sic] has showed how postwar and post Holocaust Europe, progressively made anti-Semitism still practicable in the guise of anti-Zionism.
L’informale has met her recently during her journey to Italy where she was a guest at a conference in Turin.
In your seminal book Eurabia you have explained how Europe in the Seventies, headed by France, has pursued a specific pro Arab policy explicitly against the interests of Israel. To what extent according to you has antisemitism played a role in all of this?
It is difficult to determine the role of antisemitism among actors in many countries making decisions in a variety of areas. Especially since in post-war Europe it was practically impossible to express anti-Semitic opinions. However, it can be noted that notorious anti-Semites have remained in key positions. Thus, despite the post-war purges, in the 1960s and 1970s, an influential network of officials, intellectuals and executives who had supported or collaborated with the Nazi and fascist regimes remained in the high positions of the State. For example, Walter Hallstein, who was the first president of the European Commission from 1958 to 1967, was a convinced Nazi, a university lawyer and an SS officer. He had advocated a united Europe under Nazism where the application of the racial laws of Nuremberg would have eliminated all Jewish life – a Nazi Europe economically united with the Arab world. Hans Globke, co-author of the Nuremberg Laws, was advisor to Chancellor Adenauer and his eminence grise. This situation existed throughout Western Europe. These circles promoted a European alliance with the Arab countries where Nazi criminals had taken refuge. Converted to Islam, they held important positions in Syria and Egypt in the war against Israel. Let us not forget that since the 1930s a strong ideological and political alliance based on a common anti-Semitism united Fascism and Nazism with the Arab-Muslim peoples. This active anti-Israeli but discreet Euro-Arab core gained importance after 1967 thanks to the pro-Arab French policy. From that moment, under the patronage of the Quai d’Orsay, a speech worthy of Goebbels emerges with regard to the State of Israel. Despite these networks, however, European public opinion and the governments of that time – except France – were not anti-Semitic. It was the Arab League which imposed after the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 on the European Community an anti-Semitic political strategy anticipating the eradication of the State of Israel, as it is possible to see at the Conference of Arab Heads of State in Algiers which took place from the 26th to the 29th of November 1973. For this purpose it used the oil weapon by prohibiting its sale to all countries friends of Israel. The oil embargo would be canceled only under the following conditions: first, the recognition of a previously unknown Palestinian people and of Yasser Arafat as its only representative, second, the Islamization of Jerusalem and third, Israel’s retreat on the armistice lines of 1949. Abba Eban, Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, called these lines “the Auschwitz borders”, that is to say those of the Final Solution because they placed Israel in a mortal danger. France was not struck by the embargo. In 1969 it opened a PLO office in Paris after having adopted in 1967 an anti-Israeli policy. According to Arab analyst Saleh A. Mani, a convergent Euro-Arab policy vis-à-vis Israel was conceived by France with Muammar Gaddafi before the 1973 war. In two declarations in November and December 1973, to the astonishment of the U.S.A, the Nine subjugated to the demands of the Arab League. These decisions mark the beginning of a European alliance policy with the PLO whose goal, known to all, was to destroy Israel. European support for the Arab war against Israel has led to a movement of de-legitimization and defamation of the Jewish state imposed by the European states on their populations on the political, social and cultural level and aiming to replace Israel with Palestine. The anti-Semites engaged in this movement, now legal and promoted by the States.
The recent Unesco resolutions of 2016 and 2017 have symbolically expropriated Israel in Jerusalem of the Western Wall and the Temple Mount and in Hebron of the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Isn’t this part of one precise strategy, the effacement of Jewish memory from Palestine in order to replace it entirely with Islamic history?
Exactly, that’s precisely the goal. This strategy was already implicit in the decisions of the European Community in 1973 when it demanded the retreat of Israel on the lines of 1949 and the Islamization of Jerusalem. Bear in mind that the war of 1948-49 was triggered by Arab countries and Arabs in Palestine assisted by Muslim soldiers of the fascist and Nazi armies of the Second World War. During this war the Arab countries took East Jerusalem and territories in Judea and Samaria, which they colonized and Islamized by throwing out the Jewish inhabitants. Europe did not protest against the Arab acquisition of territories by war and for the expulsion of their Jewish inhabitants. From 1949 to 1967, no Palestinian people appeared in these territories to reclaim their state. The anti-Israeli policy of the European Community decided in 1973 was reaffirmed by the EC at its meeting with the PLO in its Venice Declaration of June 1980. By this step, the EC wanted to restore fruitful economic relations with the Arab countries which had broken after the separate Israeli-Egyptian peace that the European countries could not prevent. The denial of the historical rights of Israelis in their country and the erasure of their religious and cultural memory confirms the Islamic version and interpretations of biblical history. The Qur’an states that all Hebrew biblical characters, including Jesus, were Muslims. Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, helped by European historians, have continued to appropriate the history of the Jewish people. The suppression by Europe of the history and memory of the people of Israel also erases that of Christianity, its identity and its legitimacy because Christianity is rooted in Judaism. And if Judaism is an aberration or the falsification of Islam, so is Christianity. European states – which in principle are Christian – agree to Islamize the sources of their theology and religious identity, out of hatred for Israel.
In the last years we have seen more and more the development of a narrative whose core is that Islam has strongly contributed to the coming about of Europe. At the same time in the introduction of the European Constitution there is no mention to the Jewish-Christian roots of Europe. The actual pope never loses a chance to say that Islam is a religion of peace and that if there are violent Muslims there are also violent Christians. What do you make of all of this?
This narrative about the predominant Islamic influence on European science comes from two sources: one Arab and the other European, both political. Experts have shown that it has no historical base because the roots of the current European civilization are Judeo-Christianity, Greece, Rome and the Enlightenment. The Arab-Muslim source is a response, from the years 1920-30, to the confrontation of Muslim countries with the modern progress of European civilization. This superiority of the world of disbelief is humiliating and unacceptable for Islam, which by this cultural claim attributes all its merits to itself. This being said, it is clear that there were loans here and there, as there were from Hindus and Chinese. They are normal reciprocal exchanges between peoples and civilizations but they are not fundamental elements. It is true that the civilizations of antiquity in the East influenced those later in Europe. But these pagan civilizations, three thousand years before our era, owe nothing to Islam, which came much later, nor to Arabia, geographically isolated by its deserts. This statement is also a way for Muslim immigrants to assert an ancient cultural and scientific presence of Islam in Europe and to claim political and religious rights in countries where they emigrate. The European source comes from the Mediterranean policy whose aim is to unite the two shores of the Mediterranean by strategic and cultural integration. It adopts the flattering language of the courtier toward Arab potentates and always tries to appease Muslim sensibilities in particular by a specious historical similarity of Islam and Judaism. This source does not recognize Judeo-Christianity because Muslims are offended. To ease the integration of millions of Muslim immigrants, Europe is giving up its roots. In 2000 the French deputy Jean-Louis Bianco discussed the topics on this subject in the Drafting Committee of the European Charter. The French government negotiator, Guy Braibant, having asked “what conclusions could the millions of European Muslims draw” if the charter referred to Christian values, the case was closed. The pope is right in saying that violence exists everywhere. But we are not talking about individual violence, we are talking about a religious political system advocating war and accepting only temporary truces with non-Muslims. To my knowledge Jihad, religious war of planetary conquest, exists only in Islam. Without wishing to minimize the periods of Islamic tolerance or the attempts of some monarchs to modernize Islamic conceptions, one must recognize that jihadist ideology justifies terror, fanaticism, war and genocide. If we want to create a more fraternal humanity, we must openly discuss the aims and laws of jihad. We will help progressive Muslims who courageously fight this struggle.
In its charter of 1989 Hamas explicitly states that all of Palestine is a perennial Islamic waqf. This is very consistent with the Islamic idea that once a land is conquered by Islam it belongs to it forever. What is your opinion about this?
The opinion of Hamas is in accordance with the laws of the Islamic war of conquest. Any non-Muslim country conquered by Islam becomes a waqf, an endowment for all Muslims. It is not only the lands conquered from the disbelieving peoples that constitute a waqf but the entire planet which is destined by Allah to become a waqf managed by the caliph for the Muslims. It is this belief which determines the obligation of universal conquest which is incumbent on every Muslim, possibly by war. A fortiori, none of the countries that were already Islamized can return to their former owners. This argument applies not only to Israel but to all the countries of Europe, Asia and Africa which, conquered and Islamized by jihad, became a waqf. The concept of waqf appeared for the first time in Islam during the Arab conquest of Mesopotamia, Sawad, around 636 in a discussion between the Caliph Omar ibn al-Khattab and his military commanders, about lands and conquered peoples . The idea of a waqf managed by the caliph for all Muslims was proposed by Ali, the future caliph. The establishment of the waqf in land law over all the countries removed from the disbelieving peoples has prohibited, with few exceptions, land division and private property, which explains the lack of property rights of the villagers in Ottoman Palestine and the Mandate. But Hamas’s opinion contains a contradiction. If Palestine is a waqf land then Palestinians have never owned land parcels demarcated according to a land register. If they owned plots then Palestine is no longer a waqf land. Hamas is theoretically right in terms of the right of Islamic conquest until the British mandate that abolished this right in 1917 in Palestine. Today, the West faced with a global jihad, must question the moral basis of jihad and if its laws of Islamization of land conquered from other peoples, may be universally applicable even in Europe. In 1973 Europe imposed them to Israel by calling Judea-Samaria occupied Arab lands after the expulsion of all Jews. Its recent decrees on the signaling of products from these territories indicate that Europe adopts the laws of jihad and sharia regarding Israel….
There is much more. Read the rest here.