IMMIGRATION...THE POLITICAL FOOTBALL....EADS...EURABIA... BAAT YEOR and THE LATE ORIANNA FALLACI. Migrants received the thumbs-up to make a beeline for Britain yesterday from Gordon Brown. The Prime Minister refused to shut the door on our open borders policy, claiming immigration was great for Britain. Daily Star (17-Jul-2009) IMMIGRATION? NO NEED TO CAP IT, SAYS BROWN GORDON Brown sparked fresh fury over mass immigration yesterday by explicitly ruling out a limit on Britain s spiralling population growth. Daily Express (17-Jul-2009) EU urges member states to share burden of asylum influx (STOCKHOLM) - The European Commission urged EU member states Thursday to help southern Europe confront a massive influx of asylum seekers and illegal migrants, saying solidarity and a harmonised asylum system were needed. EUbusiness.com (16-Jul-2009) The EU's power is at heart an agreement by the central member states that certain directions will be followed. There is no need for coercion, though an underlying fear of larger neighbours, well-taught during the 20th century, certainly motivates many of the smaller nations. The two key members, France and Germany, formalised their very curious alliance at the Elysee Treaty of January 1963. The smaller and poorer original members, Benelux and Italy, were either economically, militarily or diplomatically overshadowed by the Franco-German partnership, which continues to be the heart of the project. The origin of the EU's power lies in the joint recognition of France and Germany, and their establishments, that they cannot manage without each other, that Germany can have power if it exercises it through the EU but not if it does so openly, and that France can have standing, prestige (and considerable economic benefits) if it accepts an unstated but actual German political primacy. I promised to give some replies to comments on the EU and Jury postings. As usual, there isn't really room to do justice to either of these vast subjects. But let me begin with the EU, I'll concentrate on the contribution from John Davies, which lies outside the usual 'yes it is’, and 'no it isn't' bit of the debate. He says, rather surprisingly, that the EU is not in fact powerful at all. To justify this, he suggests that the power of the EU can be measured by such things as the size of its budget. You might as well measure it by the number of people it directly employs, which is (like the budget) comparatively tiny. Much more significant is the number of people who actually abide by and enforce its decrees, and the quantities of national budgets which are devoted to its ends. The EU depends greatly, at this stage in its development, on keeping up the appearance that nations still have their own governments. This is specially important here, where national independence is a treasured possession stretching back for unbroken centuries, and in Ireland where it is a hard-won prize. It is startlingly less important in France, invaded and subjugated twice in the past 150 years, in Germany, which learned that it must follow its national interests in more subtle ways after two attempts to impose them by force, and in Italy which only came into existence as a nation very recently and had (like Germany) a bad experience when it sought to assert itself. As I've said elsewhere, Britain is the only virgin in a continent of rape victims. As I haven't said elsewhere, that is why she needs to be drugged by deceit into acquiescence in the current process. But every so often she half wakes up, like poor Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby, to cry out ‘This isn't a dream. This is really happening!’ And so it is. The EU's power is at heart an agreement by the central member states that certain directions will be followed. There is no need for coercion, though an underlying fear of larger neighbours, well-taught during the 20th century, certainly motivates many of the smaller nations. The two key members, France and Germany, formalised their very curious alliance at the Elysee Treaty of January 1963. The smaller and poorer original members, Benelux and Italy, were either economically, militarily or diplomatically overshadowed by the Franco-German partnership, which continues to be the heart of the project. The origin of the EU's power lies in the joint recognition of France and Germany, and their establishments, that they cannot manage without each other, that Germany can have power if it exercises it through the EU but not if it does so openly, and that France can have standing, prestige (and considerable economic benefits) if it accepts an unstated but actual German political primacy. This relationship became more one-sided after German reunification, but has survived remarkably well considering the strains it could have imposed. The certainty, among France's elite, that conflict with Germany in future is futile, over-rode traditional French fears of a united Germany. (Arthur Koestler wrote interestingly about the doomed relationship of the two countries, one a land of bread and wine, the other a land of coal and iron, and their unequal populations, in the opening pages of his extraordinary book Scum of the Earth, which I thoroughly recommend to anyone interested in the darker corners of European history). The absorption of Britain was almost certainly a mistake on the EU's terms. They were attracted by the access to British markets it offered, by the possibilities of absorbing our military capability into an all-Europe one, by the fishing grounds, by the large net contributions which we were bound to make. Above all, they wanted to end what they regard as annoying British attempts to prevent a single power dominating the continent, the principle of London's foreign policy since the days of the first Queen Elizabeth. What they didn't anticipate was the depth and strength of the incompatibility between the Continental approach to law, government and regulation, and British traditions. It was undoubtedly a mistake on British terms. We gained nothing economically or politically by it, losing what remained of our special Commonwealth trading links, losing our territorial waters, our foreign policy independence and our ability to make our own arrangements for regulating and subsidising our industry and agriculture. We also lost our political independence, and control over our own borders. I could make a longer list if I thought it would help the argument, but most readers will get my point. British establishment enthusiasm for the European idea was rooted in chagrin, and in mistrust of the USA, following our defeat at Suez. It was in a way a sort of British Vichy mentality, defeatist and self-denigratory. It became clear during the 1980s that we were quite able to recover from the economic and political sickness of the Eden-Macmillan-Home-Wilson-Callaghan era, and were also able to conduct ourselves effectively as a medium sized diplomatic and military power. It was also increasingly clear that the ever-closer union promised in the Treaty of Rome was becoming irksome because of its growing interference with British laws at home and with our freedom of action abroad. Meanwhile, the endless promises of greater access to markets in Europe never seemed to be fulfilled. It is perfectly true that the EU has no power of any kind to force us to remain within it, and in fact the Lisbon Treaty for the first time codifies the procedure for a country which wishes to leave the EU. We could leave tomorrow, without damage, if we so wished. But the leaderships of all political parties refuse to countenance this. Why? Mr Davies is perfectly correct in saying that the British government and civil service gold-plate EU laws and regulations, because they like them so much and see them as opportunities to do what they wanted to do before. Also on occasion ministers like to claim that the EU is forcing them to do things they wish to do anyway (a very important reason why British politicians, unwilling to reveal or take responsibility for their own real aims, support EU membership so strongly. The Strasbourg Human Rights Court, a non-EU body, often performs the same function, 'forcing' British governments to do things they wanted to do anyway, but couldn't get past the voters. The Strasbourg Court has no power in Britain, except the power the British government wants to give it). But British politicians are not so keen to acknowledge their impotence over such things as Post Office closures, the wrecking of our fisheries, or the current rubbish collection mess, as they don't like admitting how much power they've handed over in return for the general irresponsibility the EU provides. I recently posted video of Bat Ye'or's remarks made in Israel. Bat Ye'or was good enough to furnish me the text of her speech. From Europe to Eurabia The characteristics of current Judeophobia in Europe are very different from previous types of antisemitism. If I was to define it without fear of words, I would call it a Euro-Arab political and theological replacement doctrine of a genocidal character whose purpose is to replace the State of Israel by Palestine. Certainly, the European States have never ceased to reassure Israel on its “safe and recognised” borders, as if the 1949 armistice lines were safe; and as if the European Community (EC) had not financed and supported Arafat and the PLO and legitimised them on the international stage since 1974. Their aim was peace – peace with Arafat which meant without Israel. It is Europe that has internationalised, justified and sanctified the “Palestinian cause” - that is, the vilification of Israel. In other words, the European Community used an Orwellian double-speak reminiscent of the Auschwitz saying: “Work makes Free”. In fact, the purpose of the EC’s Arab policy – subsequently followed by the European Union (EU) – was to delegitimise Israel, and neutralise its self-defence through incitement to hate and defamation. However, one can observe some improvement since the consecutive international conferences on antisemitism and the publicity given – notably in the USA – to its resurgence in Europe. Nonetheless, one should be wary of over-optimism for the phenomenon is closely linked to the strategic, political and economic contingencies of Europe’s Arab and Muslim policies; to the changed demographic pattern of Europe due to Muslim immigration; and to the disintegration of Europe’s identity. As we see it now, Europe is desperately looking for a way to continue funding the Palestinians whom they have always championed, in spite of their vote for Hamas. Although there are, of course, antisemites, present Judeophobia is not really a phenomenon of persons and marginal parties. Rather, it is a political and cultural strategy that embraces all countries of the European Union. It is integrated into its ideology, its institutions, network and cogs, and worked out at the highest levels of decision-making and implementation. This new Judeophobia is not aimed at individual Jews – at a population that since the Shoah has become marginal and insignificant on the demographic and political levels. It is expressed through an implacable and disdainful hate for the State of Israel, for what it represents and stands for, and by the glorification of Palestinism which is an ideology for the elimination of the Jews, as in former days of Nazism. This position is anonymous, cynical, secretive and deceitful. In other words, one does not express anti-Jewish racism; one celebrates Palestinism and its jihadist ideology. There is no point in wasting one’s money and one’s energy in trying to prove Israel’s right to exist, or to imagine that this policy stems from ignorance, for it is a coldly calculated programme, worked out in details. Europe’s anti-Israeli strategy, initiated in the 1970s will not change; it will continue to its conclusion – the destruction of Europe! For there, finally, is the paradox and the pitfall. This new Judeophobia is in fact inseparable from Europe’s longterm policy of fusion with the Arab world which includes the mass immigration from Muslim countries, with the demographic, sociological, political and religious changes that come with it. Such changes are not the result of chance but of a planned and intended strategy which unfolding can be followed in the texts of the numerous Euro-Arab conferences. I have called this transformation of Europe “Eurabia”. Eurabia is not Europe, it is its enemy. It does not represent the majority of Europeans nor all its politicians. When I speak of Eurabia I refer to an ideology, a strategy, a policy and a culture whose nerve-centre and way of working are exemplified by the Anna Lindh Foundation in Alexandria, linked to the Swedish Consulate. At the origin of this vision in the 1960s, one can identify Charles de Gaulle and Haj Amin al-Husseini, former Mufti of Jerusalem, whom de Gaulle saved from the Nuremberg trial in 1946. Implemented after the Kippur War, this view promoted an alliance between the European Community and the Arab world – operative at all levels of the European Community, regionally and internationally, and linked with the European Common Foreign and Security Policy. It aimed to create a strategic Euro-Arab pole hostile to Israel, supporting Arafat and the PLO, and opposed to America. Without much difficulty, France was able to carry along the rest of Europe into this programme from 1973, after the Arab oil embargo. Developed over a period of three decades, the Eurabian ideology and strategy – what the European call “multilateralism” – created a Euro-Arab framework between the EU bodies and its member-State on one hand and the Arab League and its countries, on the other. This framework is called the Euro-Arab Dialogue. It covers the whole Euro-Arab relationship in strategy; policy; business; social and human affairs; culture; and media, implementing bonds, associations, synergies, solidarity, connivances, common projects with the help of the European Commission and its numerous instruments and funding. Both the policy and this structure are quite unknown to ordinary Europeans. I cannot go into all the details here of this strategy which are mentioned in my book “Eurabia”, published in English and recently in French. I would simply like to point out that Eurabia represents an ideology set out in numerous Dialogue and EU documents. This ideology – comparable in several respects to those of Left-wing parties – has determined the setting up of a whole range of legal, financial and economic instruments intended to disseminate and establish it throughout the member-states of the European Union. It is known as the Mediterranean Partnership since the Barcelona Declaration of 1995, which included Israel after the Oslo agreements. It is this complex context that determines EU strategy towards the USA, Israel and the Arab states, as well as the domestic policies of each EU member state. Only if one places oneself within this framework, can one understand the EU’s policies and the current situation. It was clearly set out in a document called The European Common Strategy in the Mediterranean region, adopted by the European Council on 19th June 2000 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 22nd July 2000. In the 1970s the EC and the Arab League went into this association with different but converging aims. Antisemitism and anti-Americanism always existed amongst the European Left-wing parties, the Communists, the Nazi and Fascist movements, and this provided Arab propaganda with a favourable ground for development. Europe believed that, thereby, it had a cheap solution to protect itself from Arab terrorism; for assuring its energy supplies; dominating Arab markets; and turning Arab jihadists against Israel and the USA by adopting a pro-Arafat stance, as well as sponsoring Palestine and hence maintaining the conflict’s purulence by internationalising the Palestinian cause until Israel would wither away under a heap of infamy. The twinning of Judeophobia and anti-Americanism fitted well into the strategy of the Euro-Arab alliance and is one of its pillars. The other pillar is the war against Israel which in fact is nothing but a smoke-screen hiding the Islamization of Christian theology and the subversion of Western values. From their point of view, the countries of the Arab League and the Islamic Conference saw in this alliance with Europe the means to separate Europe from America; to divide and weaken the Western camp; to destroy Israel; to achieve technological parity with Europe; and, through the Mediterranean Partnership, to set up a vast Euro-Arab demographic, political, economic and cultural zone. In this way, with multiculturalism and immigration, Islam and Arab culture could be introduced as a force toward the Islamization on the European continent. Europe would thereby – through the combined effects of demographics, terrorist pressure and oil – become a continent, vassal of world Islam. Multiculturalism is in fact a crucial dimension of the Euro-Arab strategic alliance. Since 1975 the texts of Euro-Arab meetings and of the EU mention the agreements linking Europe to the Arab world; listing the terms of Arab and Islamic immigration to Europe; the non-integration of immigrants and the maintenance of their ties with their homelands; the establishment of cultural and political Muslim centres in European cities; and the handling of school-teaching, publications, and media. For the most recent period one can read the report of the European commission for culture, science and education presented to the European Parliamentary Assembly by Luis Maria de Puig from the Spanish socialist group (November 2002). It is within the context of multiculturalism that one must place the cultural jihad with its Judeophobic, anti-American and anti-Western character. Multiculturalism thus becomes the instrument for the subversion of Western thought, aimed at imposing on it Islamic historical and theological thinking such as, for example, the negation of the historical jihad – interpreted as a defensive rather than aggressive war – the denial of dhimmitude; or the justification of Islamic terrorism – based on a victimological perception of Muslims, the eternal victims of the Christian West and, today, of Israel, both bonded together in an essentialist vision of evil . Allow me to go a little further into the themes of this cultural jihad within multiculturalism. Through the myth of Andalusia, Islam tries to prove its historical, cultural and demographical legitimacy in Europe. Several European leaders have affirmed that Islam is at home in Europe and that it is at the root of European culture. Thus, it can legitimately impose itself, invoking multiculturalism in the education system – as the Obin Report pointed out for France (2004) – and in the European legal and cultural spheres with the introduction of shari’a principles, as well as of Islamic customs and political ethics, under the mantle of multiculturalism. For Muslim leaders, multiculturalism in Europe was a fundamental requirement in the Euro-Arab agreements governing immigration, for it allows Muslim immigrants to not integrate and to protect them “from the aberrations, the mores and thinking of non-Muslims” – as called for by Mohammed al-Tohami at the second Islamic Conference, at Lahore in February 1974. Multiculturalism encourages the coexistence of parallel communities that will never integrate, thus replicating the Ottoman millets or the conditions of Islamic colonization after its conquest of non-Muslim peoples. Multiculturalism and nationalism are polar concepts. The modern fight against European nationalisms within the inter-European scenes – for the integration of Europe – allowed millions of Muslim immigrants to import their culture to Europe and establish it on an equal footing, using two fundamental arguments: the Andalusian myth and an Islamic origin of European culture. As far as Israel is concerned the purpose of the cultural jihad waged in Western academia is to replace Israel by Palestine on the cultural and theological levels. It develops around a few main themes: the non-existence of Judeo-Christianity; the Islamization of Christian theology through the Muslim Jesus; the return to a Christian replacement theology whereby Palestine replaces Israel; the crucifixion of Palestine by an Israel born in blood and sin; the transfer of Jewish history to the Palestinians; and the Nazification of Israel. These themes do not represent the spontaneous wild talk of some antisemit fanatics. They are taught by the Sabeel Centre and other specialists and disseminated across Europe through channels linked to the Euro-Arab programme, and many European funded NGOs. They belong to a strategy and a concerted policy, whose funding and networks that extend up to the European Commission – that is to say to the Heads of States and Foreign Ministers ¬– should be exposed and denounced urgently. It was for this reason that Israel – and not Islamic terrorism ¬– was incriminated as the greatest danger to world peace in a poll ordered by the European Commission in the fifteen EU Member States in 2003, to balance Bush’s stand on the War on Islamic Terror. To conclude, I would say that the new antisemitism is situated at the geostrategic level in the Euro-Arab war against Israel. Its themes belong to traditional European Judeophobia, but integrated into the context and ideology of Islamic jihad. That is why the new Judeophobia bears within it the destruction of the West, of its institutions, its culture and its soul. Eurabia The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'or Bat Ye'or: Eurabia - The EuroArab Axis (1 of 10)Treaty of Elysee
Where does the EU get its power from?
TEXT: BAT YE'OR, "FROM EUROPE TO EURABIA"
Antisemitism, multiculturalism, and ethnic identity
International conference
Bat Ye’or
A Colloquium marking the publication of the Hebrew edition of: "Eurabia The Euro-Arab Axis" by Bat Ye'or
Chair:Prof. Eyal Zisser
Head of the Moshe Dayan Center
Lecture by: Bat Ye'or
Discussant: Dr. Uriya Shavit
Research Fellow, the Moshe Dayan Center
AT
Tel Aviv University
The Lester and Sally Entin Faculty of Humanities
The Moshe Dayan Center for
Middle Eastern and African Studies
in collaboration with
Schocken Publishing House
Wednesday, June 4, 2008, at Rolloqi
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Immigration-Brown Fully Aware!
Dont forget
OIL FOR IMMIGRATION....
E.A.D. EUROPEAN ARAB DIALOGUE
Baat Yeor and the late Orianna Fallaci.
EURABIA
................................................................
Posts
