Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam)-Post WWII (Pt 2 of 3)

· History

Dar es-Salaam (Dar al-Islam)- Post WWII – (Part 2 of 3)

(11,399 words)

Part 2 elaborates on how and why the European-Arab fusion took place, and those responsible for this union and subtle introduction of the Arab and Islamic culture to Europe now known as Eurabia. The infusion of the Arab and Islamic culture into the European Union accepted by the Council of Europe now dominates EU policies.
[Edited 27.01.11]

[Part 2 of Dar es-Salaam – Post WWII]
[Continued from: https://mbplee.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/dar-es-salaam-dar-al-islam-post-wwii-pt-1-of-3/

The Conduct of World War II

Once America became involved in the war (in Europe), it was conducted by Franklin Roosevelt, President of America and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Britain, and later with Joseph Stalin, President of the Soviet Union. They arranged several historic meetings/conferences such as agreement on the Atlantic Charter, the Casablanca Conference, Cairo 1, the Teheran Conference, Cairo 2, the Yalta Conference, between Roosevelt and Churchill and later included Joseph Stalin but the French were never directly involved.

Charles de Gaulle’s Role in Awakening Islam

Who is Charles de Gaulle and what role did he play in the future of Europe?

Charles De Gaulle as a Senior Statesman

A brief sketch of De Gaulle will establish his role in history.

Charles de Gaulle was born in Lille, France, on 22nd November, 1890. The son of a headmaster of a Jesuit school, he was educated in Paris. He was a good student and at the Military Academy St. Cyr, he graduated 13th in the class of 1912.

On 30th May 1943, de Gaulle moved to Algeria. The following month the “French Committee of National Liberation” (FCNL) was established with de Gaulle and Henri Giraud as co-presidents. De Gaulle had difficulty working with his co-president and by July, 1943, had limited Giraud’s power to command of the armed forces.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were furious when de Gaulle’s announced on 26 May, 1944, that the FCNL will now be known as the Provisional Government of the French Republic. Roosevelt and Churchill refused to recognize de Gaulle’s action and decided to exclude him from the planning of Operation Overlord.

De Gaulle was upset by not being invited to the Yalta Conference but he was allowed to represent France as one of the four countries to sign the final instrument of surrender with Germany. France was also given one of the four occupation zones in Germany.

On 13th November, 1945, the first Constituent Assembly unanimously elected de Gaulle as head of the French government. He held the post until resigning on 20th January, 1946. He then formed the right-wing group, the Rally of the French People (RFP). After initial success it declined in popularity and de Gaulle left it in 1953 and it was disbanded two years later.

After his retirement from politics de Gaulle wrote the first three volumes of his memoirs. He returned to politics in 1958 when he was elected president during the Algerian crisis. He granted independence to all 13 French African colonies but the Algerian War continued until 1962.

De Gaulle decided that France should have its own atom bomb and repeatedly blocked Britain’s attempts to join the European Economic Community. In 1966 de Gaulle withdrew France from the integrated military command of NATO.

Following student riots against his government and negative results in a referendum, de Gaulle resigned from office in April, 1969. In retirement he completed his memoirs. Charles De Gaulle died on 9th November, 1970. [1]

It was clear that Charles De Gaulle was an ambitious man and brooded on the slights received from Roosevelt and Churchill. He obviously felt superior to Henri Giraud, and felt that by establishing “The French Committee of National Liberation, (FCNL)” that he now represented France, a sovereign nation. That is why he felt humiliated when he was subsequently excluded from (1) The planning of Operation Overlord, and (2) the Yalta Conference where plans were laid for the final instruments of surrender and the division of Europe under the various national armies. He felt this humiliation do deeply that he was determined to block Britain’s attempts to join the European Economic Community. He also showed his contempt of NATO by withdrawing France from NATO and was determined to have France’s own independent atomic bomb. Vengeful De Gaulle was determined to show that he was not to be slighted. He was determined to show that France was a force to be reckoned with.

De Gaulle woos the Arabs

Based on the statistics of deaths in the table provided (Part 1,Table 1), there were some 62 million to 79 million deaths involved in WW II with the accompanying property and industrial damage. France lost 567,000 lives, Britain lost 451,000 lives, Germany lost 5 to 7 million lives, Russia lost 24 million lives as examples.This reduced manpower for rebuilding and rekindling of industry devastated by the war was a critical consideration of all post war European leaders . De Gaulle decide to tap on the resources of his ex-colonies in North Africa and thereby emerge as a French nation to be reckoned with especially with access and influence to Arab nations, their manpower and Arab oil. [2]
***France, as with all other European colonial nations, lost control of all her colonies as signatories of the Atlantic Charter. After brooding 15 years over the insults he suffered from Roosevelt and Churchill, De Gaulle came up with his conception of a unified Europe, headed by France and Germany.  Whereas, Britain through the creation of the “British Commonwealth” retained a degree of cohesion and loyalty for the British Monarchy in attempts to circumvent the losses as a result of the “Atlantic Charter.”  France realised that “to counter the dominance of America,” and to regain her former glory, it was necessary to counter America with “a unified Europe” coupled with the power and resources of the Arabs in order to form a “European bloc.” This bloc, De Gaulle perceived, would require a new “close alliance with the Arab nations” of the Middle East, unparalleled in European history.

Creation of the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD)

When De Gaulle returned to power in 1958 France continued to maintain the pro-Israel socialist government policy from the mid-1050’s. In fact, when De Gaulle received Israel’s Prime Minister David Ben Gurion at the Elysee he called Israel, “notre ami et notre allie” (our friend and ally).

However, when Algeria gained its independence in 1962 (4 years later), De Gaulle set out to reorient France’s policy toward the Arab/Islamic world. He pursued economic and strategic long-range planning designed to unite the European and Arab countries, on both sides of the Mediterranean, into a single, interdependent economic bloc that could oppose America.

However, ever since the mid-nineteenth century, France had already adopted an Islamophile orientation determined by her greater and greater influence of France’s Arab-Muslim empire in Africa and the Middle East.[See Appendix 14 for “France’s Islamic Empire.”] [4 p.40]

From 1880’s Paris had been one of the most anti-Semitic cities in Europe, competing with Vienna, a tendency that led the Vichy government to collaborate fully with Nazi and Arab anti-Jewish racism. France’s pro-Arab policy necessitated for France to adopt a stronger anti-Semitic attitude and national policy. This naturally led to an anti-American stance since America stood by Israel. [4 p.40]

Influential French intellectuals and politicians urged the government to adopt a coherent policy toward the Muslim world. Pierre Lyautey, a nephew of Marshall Lyautey, the first French governor of Morocco championed a Franco-Muslim Association. In May 1962 he said,

A French Islamic policy carried out together with the new Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, perhaps linked tomorrow with a North African federation, and with the states of the Middle East, would bring us a prestige which would impress the United States and the USSR.”

De Gaulle shared with his collaborators his wish to build a community with all the Mediterranean countries, different from the American model. This French- Arab policy coalesced with De Gaulle’s greatest ambition, the creation of a unified Europe whose centrepiece was an unprecedented rapprochement between two traditional enemies, France and what was then West Germany.

The Treaty of Paris 1951

In 1951, these two countries (France: Pres.Felix Gouin adopting De Gaulle’s policies & W.Germany: Conrad Adenauer,) along with Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, signed ***The Treaty of Paris.

This Treaty formed the initial basis for an economic European community (EEC); the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). In 1957, these same countries signed the treaties of Rome, founding the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM),which aimed at economic integration in Europe. De Gaulle, angry with Britain’s close links with America, rejected Britain’s application in 1961 and 1967. [4.p41]

France’s hostility towards America and Britain may have appear inexplicable especially when these countries liberated France from Nazism at great cost of lives, but De Gaulle could not ignore the humiliation he felt when he was excluded from decisions on “Operation Overlord” and also from the decision making meetings of the leaders concerning the future of Europe after the war at the Yalta Conference.  De Gaulle felt snubbed and brooded over it.

On November 27th, 1967, De Gaulle announced that French-Arab collaboration would be a fundamental element in French politics.

Naturally, De Gaulle had already put out feelers and already had a positive feed-back and had laid the foundations for this collaboration. Following the announcement, the French then openly took a hostile attitude towards Israel (and America) to impress the Arabs of his sincerity. And thus “began the demonising of Israel and America.” Americans have often wondered and asked why the world hates America since WWII. It should now be obvious that the machinery behind this demonising of America (and Israel) emanated from France’s desire to convince that France was sincere in her support for the Arabs and their culture. And it was the payback time for the slights America (and Britain) did to De Gaulle during WWII including stripping France of all her colonies.

It is important to note that the 2 principle factors that induced the Arabs to accept De Gaulle’s overtures for cooperation were the Arab’s perception of the:

(1) Convergence of France’s, (De Gaulle’s) continuance of the French Vichy anti-Semitism with the Arab obsession to “destroy Israel” and

(2) The French paranoid anti-Americanism born out of France’s frustrations of world power ambitions as a result of American policies, coincided with the Arab perception that “America and Israel were inextricably linked together and were mortal enemies of Islam.”

The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples”

This conference was held in January, 1969 in Cairo. The chief object of this conference was to demonstrate “European hostility towards Zionism and show solidarity with the Arab Population of Palestine.*” The conference stressed:

“that all information media should be mobilised to enlighten world public opinion, kept in ignorance and confusion by deceitful propaganda on the part of Israel and its supporters.”

It is an incumbent moral and political duty” of all participants of this conference to reveal the truth and spread it through the press, the radio, television, demonstrations, visits of delegations, and the organisation of seminars and conferences in the West and through all continents.”

Resolution 15*: “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.”
Resolution 22*: Representatives will organize, on return from the conference, special meetings and publications, and utilize the press, radio, and television media to popularize the conference’s decisions in the most appropriate way for each individual country.

[Not only were the Arabs determined to force the new European partners to demonise the Israelis and Americans, but also to force them to accept the legitimacy of the Palestinian peoples, that was a newly created *political identity since 1945, and to support their demands for their territorial demands, that also was non-existent before 1945. United States cannot claim not to have been aware of the decisions taken at these meetings as they were represented there.]

Of the 54 members of the conference,43 were from Europe, i.e., France, East Germany, England, Italy, Belgium and Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Hungary, and Chile, and the United States. [Appendix 4] [4.p44]

The Yom Kippur War-1973

The Arabs were not slow to press their advantage, realising that Europe needed them as a partner to counter-balance America a sworn ally of Israel.

So after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Arabs declared a oil boycott against all European nations that had close ties or supported Israel. After 21 days after the start of the war, the “European Community” of nine *countries (Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Britain, Denmark & Ireland.)  “recognised the rights of “the Palestinians” to participate in political negotiations and demanded Israel’s return to the armistice lines of 1949,thus diverging from UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967 and still the basis of a negotiated settlement. [Appendix 13]

The Arabs now knew that the trump cards were now in their hands, and they would take full advantage of it. *

(1)The Palestinians were formally recognised as a political body “for the first time by the EU in 1973.” Arab political pressure worked, creating an non-existent entity into one with International status recognised by the Western nations in Europe. This strengthened the Arab belief that Allah was the greatest.

(2) Supporters of Israel (America & Britain) were considered enemies of the Arab nations was clearly understood. Hence the EU appeasement to the Arabs regarding Palestine was necessary, if the EU hoped to be influential with the Arab nations. This proved the EU bowed under pressure and appeased  Arab determination to eliminate Israel their arch enemy from the time of Muhammad in the 7th century.

France and Germany Requested Official Dialogue with Arab Leaders-1973

After Europe capitulated, and the Oil Boycott of Europe ended “the French and German governments requested Arab leaders to enter into an official dialogue with European leaders to cement a stronger understanding and  a solid relationship between them.” This heralded the “birth of the EAD,” the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and the capitulation to Islam in every aspect of European political and cultural life. It was a case of the “tail wagging the dog.”

The Arabs agreed to a cooperation, but it was “conditional” that the Europeans accepted a unified foreign policy “in synchrony with the interests of the Arab states.” With such an agreement, we can appreciate why Europe has always appeared to toe the Arab line. The Arabs now call the tune  on issues of Palestinian-Israeli issues and Europe cannot ignore them any longer. This is an important aspect,  when we wonder why France and Germany and the rest of the European Union appear  submissive to Arab demands. The European Union have already conceded to the  most important Arab demands, i.e., to accept Arabic culture and philosophy as part of European culture, i.e., acceptance of the Islamic faith in Europe. Is it a price worth paying because Islam is displacing the Christian culture faster than anyone could have anticipated?
Having established the institutions of an European-Arab Dialogue, “recognised and ratified by the European Union, the Arabs lost no time in ensuring that the interests of the Arabs was firmly established in Europe. The ensuing body will be referred to as the “Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAB,” and its purpose was to bring together the two shores of the Mediterranean with the interests of the Arab world “fully appreciated and accepted in European society.” It was to be the start of a “fusion of an Arab-European culture,” acceptable on both sides of the Mediterranean. It was meant to homogenise the culture, politics, economies and policies between the two shores. It would no longer represent a European body politic culture, but a culture of Eurabia. But could it be as simple as that? Because it is difficult not to realise that the two cultures are immiscible. 

Most Europeans, man-in-the-street, (that includes British as well as those outside Europe) are still largely not aware of this European inclusion of the Arab culture within the European culture and included in the European Union policies. The Arab hatred of Israel (and thereby Israel’s supporter, America)  was introduced into the European psyche through this EAD influence.  The influence of the EAD has been carefully planned and instituted into many sectors of society, including all educational institutions of learning from the lowest to University levels, it controls the European media, political organisations, the publications of literature, European foreign policy, and even NATO.
Through the influence of the EAD, political correctness regarding Islamic sensitivities was and is observed, but  Freedom of Speech has been tilted and censorship is practised to protect Islam. Jihadist values are tolerated and terrorism is never associated with Islam but with some obscure tiny minority of extremists, and never with orthodox Islam. That is why no one has officially denounced Islamic terrorism as such.  Islam is never to blame for any atrocities but is always the victim of any conflict or aggression. European leaders continue to appease the Arabs and allow such absurd statements to go unchallenged.Meanwhile, as part of creating a better understanding between the two peoples, and as part of the friendship agreement, it was decided to allow a free flow of Arab(Muslim) immigrants into the West so as to better introduce their culture and their religion to the West. This allowed millions of Arabs seeking better standards of living through the generous social welfare benefits handed out by EU countries to immigrants.  Arabs usually  arrived with large families. This eased the burden on their original nations but burdened the host nations and caused resentments among the local citizens. Most Arabs arrive expecting and receive such social welfare benefits immediately, even depriving the native population of their rights like housing and jobs by jumping the queue. Yet unknown to most native (EU) citizens, all this was surreptitiously agreed upon by the EU with the Arabs. The European Union allowed these Arab immigrants full access to our Social Welfare system yet were non-contributors because of “the unheralded diplomatic agreements” through the EAD. This silent and unrestricted immigrant Arab invasion has been responsible for the huge surge of the immigrant Muslim population growing at an alarming rate. [3] [4]

Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance Movement-1970

The primary objective of the Arabs was to eliminate Judaism in the Arabian Peninsular. The secondary objective, gifted to them by the French and Germans, was to alter European attitudes, alienation and perception of the Arab/Islamic culture. But little did Europe suspect that this secondary objective was to cause them insurmountable conflicts and problems for the future.

So powerful was this movement triggered by the Cairo conference of 1970, proclaiming,

“Solidarity with the Palestinian Resistance and the Arab peoples”

throughout Europe as well as at the United Nations when a Committee on “the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People” was set up. Unbelievably members of many European groups joined a left-wing Catholic group called Temoignage Chretien (Christian Witness) in several anti-Israel demonstrations. Georges Montaron, its director had played a vital role in the Cairo Conference’s French delegation. He organised the World Conference of Christians for Palestine (WCCP). WCCP opened in Beirut on May7, 1970 by the Christian President of Lebanon, Charles Helon. Two thousand people from 37 countries assembled. The organizers of the conference rejoiced at the ecumenical nature of the meeting.

The Geneva bulletin of the League of Arab States recognised that the WCCP had a considerable impact on the Christian population in the West. One of the aims of the WCCP was to inform Christians around the world about the plight of the Palestinians. The Arab League’s Bulletin stated that the Middle Eastern Christian were “anxious to bring to their brothers in the West and in Eastern Europe, a testimony not only of their solidarity, but also of their identity with the Arab peoples of the region with whom they form an integral part.” For the Arab League, it was also a major victory for unity between Muslims and Christian Arabs, and for Arab solidarity in general especially in supporting the Palestinian claims in Palestine and Jerusalem.

But in reality, cracks were already appearing in this solidarity. Eastern Christians opposed anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on principle, and never accepted the basic premises of the WCCP.  In April 1969 clashes began between the Lebanese Army and the PLO in southern Lebanon and in a few years the PLO managed to destroy Lebanon in 1970. Bashir Gemayel, Lebanon’s president elect  denounced the tragic fraud imposed upon his country in the name of Arab solidarity. When he appealed for help to European politicians and the Western Churches it was in vain, as they were already backing Lebanon’s enemies in their common war against Israel. [4.p46]

The West is Blackmailed by Oil Embargo of 1973

Socked by the total Arab defeat of the Egyptian-Syrian war against Israel in October, 1973 the Arab oil-producing countries met in Kuwait on October 16-17 and decided unilaterally to quadruple the price of oil and to reduce their production of crude oil by 5% each month, until Israel withdrew from the territories that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan lost in the  1967 Six Day War which they failed to recover in 1973.

More ominously they imposed an embargo on oil deliveries to the countries that they considered friendly to Israel: the United States, Denmark, and the Netherlands.

Qaddafi said, “We will do like Samson, we will destroy the temple with all its occupants, including ourselves.”

King Faisal of Saudi Arabia declared, “There will not be any softening or compromise except if our demands are met without conditions……. in no circumstances would we abandon Arab Jerusalem.”
Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi’s oil minister, threatened that the oil-production countries could “reduce production by 80%. How could you survive with that?”
Thus, unable to annihilate Israel militarily, the Arabs used the oil threat as a weapon to coerce the West to support their war, despite the fact that they were totally dependent on the West for their industrial development, foodstuffs, and any modernization that was taking place in their countries. Western nations responded to this threat from a united Arab front in divergent ways. America, on the one hand stood firm and disregarded the Arab threats. But France and Germany panicked. Throughout the oil crisis France was careful to maintain good relations with the Arab leaders, even the most radical – such as the Saudi, Algerian, Syrian, and Iraqi leaders. The French even established semi official relation with the PLO at this time and renewed a unilateral embargo on arms sales to Israel.
Ignoring Washington’s objections, the EEC insisted on making an approach to the oil-producing countries. The nine countries of the EEC met in Brussels on November 6, 1973, and issued a joint Resolution based on their dependence on Arab Oil. [4.p47-8]

EEC Resolution of Brussels, November 6, 1973

The following resolutions were added:
(1) the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, already stated by UN Security Council’s Resolution 242;
(2) that Israel must withdraw to the armistice lines of 1949;
(3) That “the legitimate rights of the Palestinians” must be included in any definition of peace for the Middle East. [4.p48]

This clearly shows that the European Community have agreeably colluded with the Arabs against Israel and supporting the creation of the “Palestinian people” ex nihilo and giving it legitimacy.

The Modern Islamic Miracle – A Palestinian Nation

I have gone into great lengths to show how the Arab nations have been able to pressurise and influence the Western political leaders in the European Union and in the United Nations in spite of the evidence of history and Biblical traditions, and here I particularly refer to the “Arab claims for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian peoples.” The following provides evidence that Palestine did not exist before 1945.

On the termination of the British Mandate of Palestine in the middle of May, 1948 following a period of civil war (1947-48) the Arabs rejected the United Nations Resolution 181 that would have created an Arab state and a Jewish state side by side. With the encouragement of Britain The Arab League was created to resolve some of the problems in the region. The member states were Egypt, Transjordan, Syrias, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen. On the eve of the British withdrawal, Israel declared her independence whereupon Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria attacked Israel. This war ended in the 1949 Armistice Agreement. Suddenly the Palestinian Arabs became an identity unknown or non-existent before this. These new aberration, “the Palestinian Arab” assumed an identity to claim all the lands of Palestine, again a land  fictitiously created by the British Mandate for convenience of geographical terminology.

From the Bible:

Now the Lord had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. Gen 12.1

So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken to him… So they came to the land of Canaan. Gen 12.4a, 12.5d

On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt (the Wadi el Arish) to the great river, the River Euphrates” Gen 15.18

(God told Isaac…) “Dwell in this land (Canaan), and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father.” Gen 26.3

(God told Jacob…) “I am the Lord God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and your descendants. Gen 28.13b

And the Lord said (to Moses): “I have surely seen the oppression of My people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters, for I know their sorrows. So I have come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites. Exod 3.7-8

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: `When you come into the land of Canaan, this is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance — the land of Canaan to its boundaries.’ ” Num 34.1-2

Your southern border shall be from the Wilderness of Zin along the border of Edom; then your southern border shall extend eastward to the end of the Salt Sea. Your border shall turn from the southern side of the Ascent of Akrabbim, continue to Zin, and be on the south of Kadesh Barnea; then it shall go on to Hazar Addar, and continue to Azmon. The border shall turn from Azmon to the Brook of Egypt, and it shall end at the Sea. Num 34.3-5

As for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea for a border; this shall be your western border. Num 34.6

And this shall be your northern border: From the Great Sea you shall mark out your border line to Mount Hor. From Mount Hor you shall mark out your border to the entrance of Hamath. Then the direction of the border shall be toward Zedad. The border shall proceed to Ziphron, and it shall end at Hazar Enan. This shall be your northern border. Num 34.7-9

You shall mark out your eastern border from Hazar Enan to Shepham. The border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah on the east side of Ain. The border shall go down and reach to the eastern side of the Sea of Chinnereth. The border shall go down along the Jordan, and it shall end at the Salt Sea. This shall be your land with its surrounding boundaries. Num 34.10-12

The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein. Psalm 24.1

(God commanded Israel…) “The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me.” Lev 25.23

in 1946 a portion of the land of Israel was returned to the Israeli people. Once again the land was known by the name “Israel”

In the Six-Day War in 1967, the Israelis captured Jude, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

The Israelis captured those areas from Jordan, NOT from a nation known as Palestine.

In fact, Palestine has never existed as an autonomous people or nation. Accordingly, “Palestinians” are simply Arabs, Philistines, and other immigrants who occupied Israel after Rome displaced the Israeli people from their homeland in 70 A.D.

It must be a modern act of abrogation that all these Biblical verses can be made obsolete because some Arabs/Muslims wished to dismiss them. And for Western Christian leaders to agree to this blasphemy is outrageous. Now let us examine who the Palestinians really are.

The Arabs in the Holy Land – Natives or Aliens? Examining the Myths

Before the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Arabs in the Holy Land. In 1695 there was not a single Muslim Arab in Gaza, Nazareth, and Um-El-Phachem. All Arabs there were Christians. Historically, a “Palestinian” people never existed. The English name “Palestinian”, to describe the local Arab population, was invented AFTER the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. These Arabs do not even have a native name to describe themselves in their own Arabic language. The Arabs who now claim to be natives of the Holy Land have migrated to Palestine and invaded the land after 1917, from neighbouring Arab countries. There is only one possible solution to the “Palestinians” desire for a homeland – let them return to where they came from – to where they lived earlier for hundreds or thousands of years – to their real homeland in their original Arab countries.

Before the beginning of the 20th century, there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the Holy Land.  In 1695 there was not a single Muslim Arab in Gaza, Nazareth, and Um-El-Phachem. All Arabs there were Christian Arabs. By contrast, the Jews, despite 2000 years of persecution and forced conversions by various conquerors, have throughout most of history been the majority population in the Holy Land. In Jerusalem Jews were always the largest demographic group [1][2], except for periods when conquerors specifically threw them out and prevented them from returning.

When General Allenby, the commander of the British military forces, conquered Palestine in 1917/1918, only a few thousand Muslim Arabs resided in the Holy Land. Most of the Arabs were Christians, and most of the Muslims in the area either came from Turkey under the Ottoman Empire, or were the descendants of Jews and Christians who were forcefully converted to Islam by the Muslim conquerors. These Muslims were not of Arab origin. Most references to Arabs in Palestine before 1917 refer to the Christian Arabs, not to the Muslim Arabs.

It is important to note that estimates and censuses conducted by the Muslim conquerors were biased. Therefore, the only reliable data is provided by non-Muslim sources. Tourists and politicians, Arabs and non-Arabs alike, have documented their observations of the population in the Holy Land beginning more that a thousand years ago. Let’s start at the early days and continue into the Ottoman period:

The historian James Parkes wrote: “During the first century after the Arab conquest [640-740 CE], the caliph and governors of Syria and the Holy Land ruled entirely over Christian and Jewish subjects. Apart from the Bedouin in the earliest days, the only Arabs west of the Jordan were the garrisons.”[3]

In year 985 the Arab writer Muqaddasi complained: “the mosque is empty of worshippers… The Jews constitute the majority of Jerusalem’s population” (The entire city of Jerusalem had only one mosque?). [4]
In 1377, Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable Arab historians, wrote: “Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel extended over 1400 years… It was the Jews who implanted the culture and customs of the permanent settlement”.[5]

In 1695-1696, the Dutch scholar and cartographer, Adriaan Reland (Hadriani Relandi) , wrote reports about visits to the Holy Land. (There are those who claim that he did not personally visit the Holy land but collected reports from other visitors.) He was fluent in Hebrew and Arabic. He documented visits to many locations. He writes:  The names of settlements were mostly Hebrew, some Greek, and some Latin-Roman. No settlement had an original Muslim-Arab name with a historical root in its location. Most of the land was empty, desolate, and the inhabitants few in number and mostly concentrated in Jerusalem, Acco, Tzfat, Jaffa, Tiberius and Gaza. Most of the inhabitants were Jews and the rest Christians. There were few Muslims, mostly nomadic Bedouin’s. The Arabs were predominantly Christians with a tiny minority of Muslims. In Jerusalem there were approximately 5000 people, mostly Jews and some Christians. In Nazareth there were approximately 700 people – all Christians. In Gaza there were approximately 550 people – half of them Jews and half Christians. Um-El-Phachem was a village of 10 families – all Christians. The only exception was Nablus with 120 Muslims from the Natsha family and approximately 70 Shomronites.[6]

In 1835 Alphonse de Lamartine wrote: “Outside the city of Jerusalem, we saw no living object, heard no living sound. . .a complete eternal silence reigns in the town, in the highways, in the country.”[7]

In 1844, William Thackeray writes about the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem: “Now the district is quite deserted, and you ride among what seem to be so many petrified waterfalls. We saw no animals moving among the stony brakes; scarcely even a dozen little birds in the whole course of the ride.”[8]

In 1857, the British consul in Palestine, James Finn, reported: “The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is that of a body of population.”[9]

In 1866, W.M. Thomson writes: “How melancholy is this utter desolation. Not a house, not a trace of inhabitants, not even shepherds, to relieve the dull monotony …  Much of the country through which we have been rambling for a week appears never to have been inhabited, or even cultivated; and there are other parts, you say, still more barren.”[10]

In 1867, Charles Wyllys Elliott, president of Harvard University, wrote: “A beautiful sea lies unbosomed among the Galilean hills, in the midst of that land once possessed by Zebulon and Naphtali, Asher and Dan … Life here was once idyllic, charming …  It was a world of ease, simplicity, and beauty; now it is a scene of desolation and misery.”[30]

In 1867, Mark Twain – Samuel Clemens, the famous author of “Huckleberry Finn” and “Tom Sawyer”, toured the Holy Land. This is how he described the land: “There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent – not for thirty miles in either direction. There are two or three small clusters of Bedouin tents, but not a single permanent habitation.  One may ride ten miles, hereabouts, and not see ten human beings. … No man can stand here by deserted Ain Mellahah and say the prophecy [“and your land shall be desolate and your cities waste”] has not been fulfilled … We had left Capernaum behind us.  It was only a shapeless ruin.  It bore no semblance to a town, and had nothing about it to suggest that it had ever been a town …  These unpeopled deserts, these rusty mounds of barrenness…  A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse…   the country is infested with fierce Bedouin, whose sole happiness it is, in this life, to cut and stab and mangle and murder innocent Christians.  Allah be with us! …   A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely. We never saw a human being on the whole route … After a while we came to a shapeless mass of ruins, which still bears the name of Bethel. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country… No landscape exists that is more tiresome to the eye than that which bounds the approaches to Jerusalem…. we were marching down a close, flaming, rugged, desolate defile, where no living creature could enjoy life, except, perhaps, a salamander.  It was such a dreary, repulsive, horrible solitude! …  Ancient Jericho is not very picturesque as a ruin… The journey to the Dead Sea, the Jordan and Bethlehem was short, but it was an exhausting one.  Such roasting heat, such oppressive solitude, and such dismal desolation can not surely exist elsewhere on earth… Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince….It is a hopeless, dreary, heart-broken land… I would like much to see the fringes of the Jordan in spring-time, and Shechem, Esdraelon, Ajalon and the borders of Galilee–but even then these spots would seem mere toy gardens set at wide intervals in the waste of a limitless desolation. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes.  … one finds only a squalid camp of fantastic Bedouin of the desert… Nazareth is forlorn… Jericho the accursed, lies a mouldering ruin, … Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and their humiliation, … is not tenanted by any living creature…  Renowned Jerusalem itself, the stateliest name in history, has lost all its ancient grandeur, and is become a pauper village… The noted Sea of Galilee … was long ago deserted … Capernaum is a shapeless ruin; Magdala is the home of beggared Arabs; Bethsaida and Chorazin have vanished from the earth…   a solitude that is inhabited only by birds of prey and skulking foxes. Palestine is desolate and unlovely.”[11]

In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: “But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude…. Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter — “the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants.” (Jeremiah, ch.44 v.22)[12]

In 1881, the British cartographer Arthur Penrhyn Stanley wrote: “In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for miles and miles there was no appearance of life or habitation.”

In 1892, B. W. Johnson writes: “In the portion of the plain between Mount Carmel and Jaffa one sees but rarely a village or other sights of human life… A ride of half an hour more brought us to the ruins of the ancient city of Cæsarea, once a city of two hundred thousand inhabitants, and the Roman capital of Palestine, but now entirely deserted… I laid upon my couch at night, to listen to the moaning of the waves and to think of the desolation around us.”[13]

In 1913, a British report, by the Palestinian Royal Commission, quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the Mediterranean Sea: “The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the [Jewish] Yabna village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants.”

As we can see, throughout history, as documented by Arab historians and by foreign observers before 1917, the land was desolate; there were practically no Muslim Arabs in the cities outside of Jerusalem (except 120 Muslims in Nablus); and the number of Muslim Arabs (other than Ottoman Muslims or Christian Arabs) was minuscule, most of them nomadic Bedouin.  In 1695 there was not a single Muslim Arab in Gaza, Nazareth, and Um-El-Phachem. All Arabs there were Christians. The difference between these multiple authentic accounts and the falsified Muslim-Arab propaganda is huge, almost beyond imagination.

Mark Twain’s description of the Holy Land has been the target of severe Muslim criticism. However, earlier and later visitors to the Holy Land all give the same description of desolation, misery, and lack of inhabitants, thus confirming Mark Twain’s observations.

Neville Chamberlain, in a speech given at the Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 13 Oct. 1918, said: “A great responsibility will rest upon the Zionists, who before long will be proceeding with joy in their hearts to the ancient seat of their people. Theirs will be the task to build up a new prosperity and a new civilization in old Palestine, so long neglected and misruled. They will carry with them the hearty goodwill of the British nation and its earnest hope that in their own country they may prove worthy of their past and of the great opportunity that has been given to them.”

When the Holy Land was taken from the Ottomans by the British, it was no longer under Muslim control. The Quran commands Muslims to take land away from non-Muslims, including land which they have never trodden on before[14].  Following the British conquest of the Holy land, the Muslim Arabs embarked on a massive immigration into the Holy Land, fulfilling their religious obligation to capture as much foreign land as possible. The following accounts describe the massive Arab immigration after 1918:

In 1930/31, Lewis French, the British Director of Development wrote about the Arabs in Palestine: “We found it inhabited by fellahin (Arab farmers) who lived in mud hovels and suffered severely from the prevalent malaria… Large areas were uncultivated… The fellahin, if not themselves cattle thieves, were always ready to harbour these and other criminals. The individual plots changed hands annually. There was little public security, and the fellahin’s lot was an alternation of pillage and blackmail by their neighbours, the Bedouin (Arab nomads).”
The British Hope-Simpson Commission recommended, in 1930, “Prevention of illicit immigration” to stop the illegal Arab immigration from neighbouring Arab countries.[15]

The British Governor of the Sinai (1922-36) reported in the Palestine Royal Commission Report: “This illegal immigration was not only going on from the Sinai, but also from Transjordan and Syria.”
The governor of the Syrian district of Hauran, Tewfik Bey El Hurani, admitted in 1934 that in a single period of only a few months over 30,000 Syrians from Houran had moved to Palestine.

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill noted the Arab influx. Churchill, a veteran of the early years of the British mandate in the Holy Land, noted in 1939 that “far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population.”

The Arab population in the Holy Land increased only because of their massive immigration from neighbouring Arab countries. Before 1918, when the Arab immigration started, only a minuscule number of Muslim Arabs lived in the Holy Land, practically all of them in Jerusalem. This is why it is so difficult to find an old-age Muslim-Arab whose grandparents were born in the Holy Land.[6]

Muslim-Arab population and growth in Jerusalem before and after 1918.
The break point between the two straight lines shows the exact point in time
when the massive Arab immigration into the Holy Land started.

After 1918, when the large waves of foreign Muslim-Arab immigration started, following the British conquest. Up until 1948 the British restricted Jewish immigration and encouraged Muslim-Arab immigration. [Why this bias?] It is the landless foreign Muslim-Arabs who immigrated after 1918 that started the conflict, NOT the Zionist Jewish immigration between 1881-1914, which was a peaceful period. For example, in 1929, the Hebron Massacre of the local Jews was done by foreign Arabs, not by the established local families who lived there and even tried to defend the Jews.

The family names of many Arabs who now occupy the Holy Land reveal their country of origin:  Masri (from Egypt ),  Iraqi (from Iraq), Tarabulsi (from Tarabulus-Tripoli in Lebanon), Hourani (from Houran in Syria), Husseini (from Jordan), and Saudi (from Saudi Arabia). All modern Palestinian immigrants appeared since the establishment of Modern Israel. Palestinians came into existence on June 4th, 1967

Historically, a “Falestinian” people never existed. The fact is that the Arabs, who now try to call themselves by the English name “Palestinians” and mis-pronounce it “Falestinians”, don’t even know what their name is in Arabic. Even Arab leaders and historians have admitted that a “Palestinian” people never existed. For example:

In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: “There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us.”

In 1946, Princeton’s Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: “It’s common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history.”

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: “The ‘Palestinian people’ does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel.”
Joseph Farah, an Arab-American journalist, writes: “The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity.”

Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist acknowledged the lie he was fighting for:  “Why is it that on June4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian? … we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians. They removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag.”

The Syrian dictator Hafez Assad said: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity”.

Dr. Azmi Bishara, a notable leader of the Arabs in Israel, who fought against the Israeli “occupation”, said in a TV interview[20]: “There is no Palestinian nation. It’s a colonial invention. When were there any Palestinians?”

There is only one possible solution to the “Palestinians” desire for a homeland. It is the only solution that will satisfy their claim of the right to return to their homeland. Since helping them return to where they lived for less than 30 years is their own definition of justice, then helping them return to where they lived earlier for hundreds or thousands of years is, by the same definition, a better justice. Let’s all help them get the better justice they deserve. Let’s help them return to where they came from – Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. [6] [6a]

Arab Policy for the Transfer of Arabic ideology and culture to Europe

Arabs believed that European disdain of the Arabs was due to the fact that they did not understand the Arabs and their culture. Thus in order to raise the esteem of Arabs in Europe it was essential to inform Europeans  by teaching them the Arabic language and the Arabic culture so that the Europeans could learn how sophisticated and superior the Arabic culture and scientific achievements have been in the past 1400 years. The Arabs set about this task with vigour through the fostering and mechanism of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. It soon developed into the Arab cause –  to educate the Europeans so they understand the Arabs and the Arab/Muslim culture that has led to the present attempts to convert Europe to accept Islam.

The Necessity of a Political Entente between Europe and the Arab World

The Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC) made several resolutions that were passed unanimously at Strasbourg on June 7-8, 1975. The PAEAC was attended by two hundred West European parliamentarians representing the major trends of the political spectrum, so it cannot be denied that any European nation was not aware of the decisions taken. From a European perspective, a fundamental goal of the Dialogue: a united front in foreign policy so as to  become a global alternative to American power and dominance. The foreign ministers of the nine EC countries had agreed on June 10, 1974 on the need to adopt a common foreign policy, bringing member states’ positions closer in order to place Euro-Arab cooperation within a secure political framework. It is one of history’s ironies that Europe’s unification and integrative process was anchored in an anti-Israel (anti-American) policy and formed an alliance with Usrael’s (Judaism’s) most rabid enemies.

The unifying policy was “a necessity of a political entente between Europe and the Arab world as a basis for economic (and cultural) agreements” and the obligation for Europeans to “understand the political as well as the economic (and cultural) interests of the Arab world.” In order for Europe to live up to her end of the bargain, it was imperative that European authorities had to create,”a climate of opinion favourable to the Arabs.”  This gave birth to the “PROTOCOL OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” in the Arabic world for all Western governments and their media. This also meant that Western nations had to be aware, at all times, to the ‘sensitivities of the Arab/Islamic world’  even to the point of appeasing the Arabs. And this is exactly what the EU members have been doing ever since.

The journal of the European Committee for Coordination of Friendship Associations with the Arab World, in its editorial of their publication Eurabia said,

If they (EU) really want to cooperate with the Arab world, the European governments and political leaders have an obligation to protest against the denigration of Arabs in their media. They must reaffirm their confidence in the Euro-Arab friendship and their respct for the millennial contribution of the Arabs to world civilisation. [4. p64]

Not only were the Arabs demanding to be recognised as equal partners in every aspect, i.e., politically, legally, civilly, and intellectually, but for the west to also accept any Arab myths about their arts, sciences and philosophies, and other contributions to civilisation without question. As we can observe today, the West accepted all these demands in a docile and unchallenged manner. Now perhaps we can better understand the rhetoric emanating from our politicians and our media and from the EU ministers. Perhaps we can now appreciate why Bat Ye’or fears that we are drifting inextricably into a state of “dhimmitudism.”

Special Privileges For Arab/Muslim Immigrants entering the EU

Through the channels of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, the Arabs demanded and established a very important aspect in the Arab designs for Europe. They demanded special conditions for all Arab immigrants [this of course extended to all Muslim immigrants including those from the sub continent]:

The Association requires European governments to arrange legal provisions concerning “the free movement……and respect for the fundamental rights of immigrant (Arab) workers in Europe; these rights must be equivalent to those of national citizens.”

The Association considers the political settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict an absolute necessity for the establishment of a real Euro-Arab cooperation.[4. p65]

The Association also expressed the hope that “the harmonious development of cooperation between Western Europe and the Arab nation” would benefit from the ‘free circulation of (Arab/Islamic) ideas and Arab citizens.By complying to these last conditions, meant that there were no  restrictions that could be imposed on Arab/Muslim immigration into the EU.  The EU agreed to these demands, consequently any European hopes for applying immigration controls must therefore exempt Arabs/Muslims? This is a dilemma for European nations who will need to bear all the welfare costs for including these immigrants under their umbrella and was never foreseen in their annual budgetary estimates. Perhaps the public will now appreciate why governments have been so ineffective in tightening the immigration regulations. They were bound by agreements through the EU. Hence, the free use of the Human Rights acts is often quoted to pacify public opinion.The hands of all EU nation states are tied by their agreements with the Arabs. Unless the EU or its member states are prepared to break their agreements it would appear that the European Union Member states have in fact engineered their own demise, unless they can devise a solution before it is too late. Or has the Western civilisation on its way to oblivion?

Review of growth of Arab Immigrants into Europe since 1950

Bearing in mind that The Euro-Arab Cooperation began in 1974 and the Strasbourg Convention’s Resolutions in June, 1975. The increase of Muslim population in a few strategic countries is alarming.

 Europe  1950  1980  2010
     Number of Muslims  10.7 million  693 million  733 million
     As % of Population   1.97%  3.57%  5.74%
     Number of Muslims  0.230 million  2.48 million  6.21 million
     As % of Population  0.55%  4.6%  6.26%
     Number of Muslims  20 thousand  1.72 million  4.28 million
     As % of Population  0.03%  2.2%  5.2%
     Number of Muslims  101 K  1.24 million  2.45 million
     As % of Population  0.2%  2.2%  4.0%
     Number of Muslims  5.1 K  396 K  966K
     As % of Population  0.05%  2.8%  5.8%
     Number of Muslims  701  24.9K  500K
    As % of Population  0.01%  0.3%  5.38%

It is clear that after 1975 the growth of Muslim population in European nations increased at an exponential rate and worrying. It has also inflamed problems between the Muslims and the native inhabitants as the Muslim population demand their rights to all the  privileges on the Social Welfare systems and test their legal rights through their aggressive demonstrations and unacceptable behaviour. Yet there is practically nothing the European Union Member states can do because of the agreements with the Arabs to treat Arabs not only as equals but with preferential treatment. To have abrogated any of these agreements would have caused the Muslim world to go into a catatonic state of frenzy leading to violent and uncontrollable behaviour.

***Muslim Herd Behaviour based on Demographics

The following are typical herd behaviour of Muslims as their population increases in infidel lands (Europe), Dar al Harb:

(1)  As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone.
(2)  At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.
(3)  From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply.
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
(4)  When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
(5)  After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning.
(6)  From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels.
(7)  100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim. Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons. [7]

Many of the European nation states today (early 2011), as tabled above – France, Germany, Britain, Holland, Sweden, have already reached 5% to 10% mark and predicted typical behaviour and demands of the Muslims have already clearly emerged. Yet the governments are behaving complacently and not tending to the threats to their nation. Have the West already lost the battle? All the facts are clearly before us, but we do not wish to see it. Our political leaders are in a state of deep hypnotic denial.


Appendix 1

French Presidents post WWII
1944 De Gaulle is provisional President.

1946 Socialist Felix Gouin replaces De Gaulle.

1958 De Gaulle returns to power.
1969 Georges Pompidou elected president.
1970 De Gaulle dies of stroke.
1974 Pompidou dies and Valery Giscard d’Estaing is President.
1981 Socialist Francois Mitterrand elected President.
1988 Mitterrand re-elected President.
1995 Jacques Chirac elected President.
2002 Chirac re-elected President.
2007 Nicolas Sarkozy elected President.

Timeline France: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/999717.stm

Appendix 2

German Chancellors post WWII
1933 Adolf Hitler appointed Chancellor.
1949 Konrad Adenauer first post war Chancellor.
1963 Ludwig Erhard is Chancellor.
1966 Kurt Georg Kiesinger is Chancellor.
1969 Willy Brandt is Chancellor.
1974 Helmut Schmidt becomes Chancellor.
1982 Helmut Kohl is Chancellor.
1988 Gerhard Schroder is Chancellor.
2005 Angela Merkel elected Chancellor.

German Chancellors: http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Timeline_of_German_history

Appendix 3

DEMOGRAPHICS – Muslim migration into Europe since WWII

Europe (incl. estimate)

1950 1960 1980 2000 2010 2020
Population 547 mil 604 mil 693 mil 726 mil 733 mil 742 mil
Muslims   10.7 mil    13.4 mil    24.7 mil    37.3 mil    42.0 mil    42.7 mil
%Muslims    1.97%      2.22%       3.57%       5.14%       5.74%       5.76%


 1950  1960  1980  2000  2010  2020
Population   41.8mil   45.6 mil    53.9 mil    59.1 mil    62.3 mil    66.3 mil
Muslims     0.230 mil    0.913mil    2.48mil     4.73mil     6.26mil     6.64mil
%Muslims       0.55%      2.0%    4.6%    8.0%    10.0%    10.0%


 1950  1960 1980  2000  2010  2020
 Population  68.4 mil  72.8 mil  78.3 mil  82.1 mil  82.1 mil  82.1
 Muslims    20K   22K   1.72 mil   3.2 mil   4.28 Mil  4.28 mil
 % Muslims   0.03%    0.03%    2.2%    3.9%    5.22%   5.22%

United Kingdom

 1950  1960  1980  2000  2010  2020
 Population  50.6 mil  52.4 mil  56.3 mil  58,9 mil  61.9 mil  65.0 mil
 Muslims   101K   105K  1.24 mil  1.60 mil  2.45 mil   2.6 mil
 % Muslims    0.2%   0.2%   2.2%   2.71%  4.0%   4.0%


 1950  1960  1980  2000  2010  2020
 Population   10.1 mil  11.5 mil  14.1 mil  15.9 mil  16.6 mil  17.4 mil
 Muslims    5.1K   5.7K   396K   875K   966K  1.01 mil
 % Muslims   0.05%   0.05%   2.8%  5.5%  5.8%   5.8%


 1950  1960  1980  2000  2010  2020
 Population  7.0 mil  7.5 mil  8.3 mil  8.9 mil   9.3 mil  9.7 mil
 Muslims      701    748   24.9K  302K   500K    524K
 % Muslims     0.01%    0.01%   0.3%   3.4%   5.38%    5.38%


 1950  1960  1980  2000  2010  2020
 Population  4.3 mil  4.6 mil  5.1 mil  5.3 mil   5.5 mil   5.6 mil
 Muslims  427   458   16K  106K   203K   208K
 % Muslims    0.01%    0.01%    0.32%   2.0%    3.7%    3.7%


 1950  1960  1980  2000   2010  2020
 24.8 mil  29.6 mil  35.6 mil   38.4 mil   38.0 mil   37.6 mil
 Muslims    12K  15K  18K   3.8K   26.6K  26.3K
 % Muslims    0.05%   0.05%   0.05%   0.01%   0.07%   0.07%


 1950  1960  1980  2000   2010  2020
 Population   102 mil  120 mil  139 mil  147 mil  140 mil  134 mil
 Muslims    6.1 mil    7.3 mil    10.3 mil    14.9 mil    14.2 mil  13.6 mil
 % Muslims    5.97%    6.11%     7.43%   10.14%    10.14%   10.14%

Demographic Tables:

Appendix 4

The Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples” held January, 1969 in Cairo. The chief object of this conference was to demonstrate hostility to Zionism and show solidarity with the Arab Population of Palestine. The conference stressed:

“that all information media should be mobilised to enlighten world public opinion, kept in ignorance and confusion by deceitful propaganda on the part of Israel and its supporters. “It is an incumbent moral and political duty” of all participants of this conference to reveal the truth and spread it through the press, the radio, television, demonstrations, visits of delegations, and the organisation of seminars and conferences in the West and through all continents.”

Resolution 15*: “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.”
Resolution 22*: Representatives will organize, on return from the conference, special meetings and publications, and utilize the press, radio, and television media to popularize the conference’s decisions in the most appropriate way for each individual country.
Of the 54 members of the conference,43 were from Europe, i.e., France, Italy, England, Belgium and Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Poland, East Germany and Hungary, and Chile, and the United States. [4.p44]
Appendix 5Venice Euro-Arab Seminar, 1977This seminar was to formulate, “Means and Forms of Cooperation for the Diffusion in Europe of the Knowledge of Arabic Language and Literary Civilization.”
(1) To spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe.
(2) To create joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centres in European capitals to do this.
(3) To encourage European Institutions at University level or other levels to teach the Arabic language and “Islamic culture.” etcetera, etcetera.
[Islamic culture, the code word for the Islamisation of Europe.]
Euro-Arab Symposium, Paris, 1977: Final Resolution:

Point 5. The symposium demands that the Conference of the so called “Euro-Arab Dialogue” should welcome, without restrictions and with realism, the political problems-while following the implementation and development of cooperative economic and cultural goals.

(Represented by:Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Holland, France, Switzerland, Portugal, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Spain, as well are European and American personalities.) [4]

Appendix 6The Fez Islamic Conference, Cairo 1980This was a Conference of Islamic Foreign Ministers of all Muslim countries. The Islamic states then committed themselves to:

1. to meet the challenge and liberate Al Quds Al Sharif (Jerusalem);

2. to uphold Arab-Islamic sovereignty over the Holy City;

3. to confirm their support of the Palestinian people;
 4. to counter the Israeli aggression with their power and potential;
 5. to sustain support for the heroic struggle of the Palestinian people until the liberation of Al Quds (Jerusalem) and the restoration, by the Palestinian people, of their inalienable rights, including their right to repatriation, self-determination and the establishment of their own independent state in their territory. [4]
Appendix 7Amman Arab Summit Conference, 1980
The conference reasserted the right of the Palestinian Arab people, as represented by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, its sole legitimate representative to return to its land, to determine its own destiny and to establish an independent Palestinian State on the soil of its homeland while pointing out that it was the PLO which alone has the right to take upon itself the responsibility for the future of the Palestinian people.
The conference condemned the continuing political, military and economic support given by the Government of the United States of America to Israel. [4] Appendix 8Mecca Islamic Summit Conference, 1981.Resolution No.1/3-P(IS) on the Islamic Programme of Action Against the Zionist Enemy.

Summary of Decision after The third Islamic Summit Conference, at Mecca Al-Mukarrama and Taif from 19-22 Rabi-al-Awal 1401 H (25-28 Jan. 1981):

To “declare holy Jihad, as the duty of Every Muslim, man or woman, ordained by the Shariah and glorious traditions of Islam;”

To call upon all Muslims, living inside or outside Islamic countries, to discharge this duty by contributing each according to his capacity in the cause of Allah Almighty, Islamic brotherhood, and righteousness;

To specify that Islamic states, in “declaring Holy Jihad to save Al-Quds al-Sharif, in support of the Palestinian people, and to secure withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories,” wish to explain to the world that Holy Jihad is an Islamic concept which may not be misinterpreted or misconstrued, and that the practical measures to put it into effect would be in accordance with the concept and by incessant consultations among Islamic states. [4]
Appendix 9Hamburg Symposium, 1983Three workshops were established to discuss how to implement:
(1) Cultural exchanges. (To Islamize Europe.)
(2) To cope with Social and Cultural Migration.
(3) To cooperate in the teaching of Arabic and European languages. [4]
Appendix 10
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, 1991
(Extracts of a few of the demands of this symposium.)

1. The Council of Europe has the statutory mission to safeguard and realise the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of its member states. (i.e. to safeguard Islam.)The council of Europe has the statutory mission to safeguard and realise the spiritual and moral values which are the common heritage of its member states. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human rights enshrines the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2.  Multicultural Europe is based on humanist and religious traditions, which are the source of its dedication to freedom and human rights, as recalled be the Assembly in Resolution 885 (1987) on the Jewish contribution to European culture.
3.  In a similar spirit, the Committee on culture and Education held a colloquy in Paris in May 1991 on the contribution of the Islamic civilisation to European culture. The colloquy was organised in collaboration with the Western Institute for Islamic Culture (Madrid) and in association with Unesco. 4.  The colloquy shoued that, in addition to christianity and Judaism, Islam in its different forms has over the conturies had an influence on European civilisation and everyday life, and not only in countries with a Muslim population such as Turkey. …….etcetera [4]

Appendix 11
Vatican Commission, 2003

Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews

Reflections by Cardinal Walter Kasper: Anti-Semitism: A wound to be healed.
The Vatican expresses her concern in the following way:

In this spirit of rediscovered brotherhood a new springtime for the Church and for the world can bloom once more, with the heart turned from Rome to Jerusalem and to the land of the Fathers, so that there too a just and lasting peace may quickly germinate for all and mature like a banner flying in the midst of the peoples.” [4]

Appendix 12
Putrajaya Islamic Summit, 2003.
Essentially this summit was to “plot a course for the future of Islam and Muslim Ummah worldwide.” Extracts of 2 paragraphs will illustrate the tone of the Summit:

Words spoken by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at the opening:

I will not enumerate the instances of our humiliation and oppression, nor will I once again condemn our detractors and oppressors. It would be an exercise in futility because they are not going to change their attitudes  just because we condemn them. If we are to recover our dignity and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who must decide, it is we who must act.

To begin with, the governments of all the Muslim countries can close ranks and have a common stand if not on all issues, at least on some major ones, such as on Palestine. We are all Muslims. We are all oppressed. We are all being humiliated. But we who have been raised by Allah above our fellow Muslims to rule our countries have never really tried to act in concert in order to exhibit at our level the brotherhood and unity that Islam enjoins upon us.” ……..[4]

Appendix 13High-Level Advisory Group Report, 2003This was established at the initiative of the President of the European Commission, Brussels Oct. 2003.“Dialogue Between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area.”Make the Foundation the guardian of the dialogue.

The Foundation must be able to perform three essential functions without restriction. Firstly, it should be the guardian of the values and guiding principles of the dialogue, which will together form its operating “software.”

Secondly, its specifications must ensure that it can promote, launch and coordinate all the actions and initiatives that correspond to these principles and also assess the extent to which any ongoing initiative is compatible with these principles.
The third and final condition is visibility. The Foundation must be identifiable with a place that is clearly visible and understandable, wherever it may be. [4]

Appendix 14
UN Security Council Resolution 242

Affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

  • Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
  • Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

Affirms further the necessity,

  • For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
  • For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
  • For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones;
Appendix 15France’s African Colonial Empire – “The Islamic Empire”:(1) France conquered Algeria, 1830.
(2) Guinea, Gabon, 1843-44.
(3) Mauritania, Senegal, 1854-65.
(4) Tunisia, 1882.
(5) French Equatorial Africa, 1910.
(6) Chad, Gabon, Congo, and Central African Republic, Madagascar 1895-96.
(7) The Comoros, Morocco 1912.
(8) And Mandates over Syria, and Lebanon after WWI.
Appendix 16Balfour Declaration of 1917The Balfour Declaration was a short letter by Arthur Balfour to arguably one of the most influential Jewish families – the Rothschild’s. It was assumed that the letter gave the British government’s support to the creation of a Jewish homeland.


Foreign OfficeNovember 2nd, 1917Dear Lord Rothschild,I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved, by the Cabinet:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.


Arthur James Balfour


This is probably one of the early British references to a “Palestine territory.” Note that it clearly refers to “non-Jewish communities” and not to a “Palestinian community.”


Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: