The Arab Influence on Western Policies (part 1 of 2)

· Human Rights, Islam, Law


What influence has Arab ideology had on European ideologies since World War II? Strangely I have found research material very wanting, and so I am wondering why this is so? Therefore I will attempt to try to piece together what I am able to lay my hands on in order to make some sense of our current situation.

Charles de Gaulle

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.

In World War II

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 assignatories 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

Shocked 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.

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.

When Charles De Gaulle set out to regain France’s lost glory, and to be the European leader to challenge the supremacy of America in 1962, first by uniting Europe and next to shore up her strength by including the Arab world as partners, little did he realise he was laying the foundations for the Islamisation of Europe, and possibly for the demise of the European culture. France first step was to accomplished a rapprochement with her sworn enemy Germany in order to unite Europe, then she began to woo the Arab world. The final act that scuppered any doubters for the need to accept Arabs as an equal partner in Europe was decided in 1973 by the imposition of the Arab Oil Embargo.

France and Germany Request Official Dialogue with Arab Leaders-1973

After “Europe capitulated” to Arab demands for not supporting Israel, resulting from the Oil Boycott of Europe, “the French and German governments requested Arab leaders to enter into an official dialogue with European leaders in order to cement a stronger understanding and  a solid relationship between them.” This was the “birth of the EAD,” the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and the introduction of Arabic/Islamic culture into every aspect of European political, economic and social life. It was now a philosophy of the “tail that wagged the dog.”

The Arabs agreed to this mutual relationship 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 understand why Europe, time and time again, has toed the Arab line. The Arabs now could call the tune any time they liked. This is an important aspect, to be recognise when some of us wonder why France and Germany and the rest of the European Union appear so submissive to Arab antics and demands. The European Union had already conceded to the Arab’s most important demands, to accept Arabic culture and philosophy as part of and equal to the European culture, i.e., acceptance of the Islamisation of Europe in order to buy peace and cooperation. Was it a price worth paying?

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 were firmly established in Europe. The ensuing body, referred to as the “Euro-Arab Dialogue, EAB,” and the 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, 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 to see how the two cultures could be immiscible.

Most Europeans, man-in-the-street, (that includes British as well as those inside and outside Europe) are still not aware of this movement for the inclusion of the Arab culture within the European culture and ratified by the European Union parliamentarians. The Arab hatred of Israel (and thereby Israel’s supporter, America)  was also imported into the European psyche through the EAD influence.  The influence of the EAD had been carefully planned and instituted into many sectors of European 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 the workings of NATO. Note that France did not participate in NATO operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Through the influence of the EAD, political correctness was observed throughout European politics and media so much so that it restricted the Freedom of Speech since nothing derogatory could be uttered against Islam. Jihadist values were tolerated and terrorism is never associated with Islam but with some obscure tiny minority of  fringe extremists, never with orthodox Islam. That is why no one, European or Arab politicians, have ever officially denounced Islamic Jihadism/terrorism. Any unrest or conflicts were always blamed on Israel or America, or Britain or justified by their brutality in Iraq and Afghanistan. Islam is never to blame but is always the victim of any conflict or aggression. Yet, European leaders continue to appease the Arabs and allowed such ridiculous declarations to go unchallenged for fear of upsetting their sensitivities.

Meanwhile, as part of creating a better understanding between peoples, as part of the friendship agreement it was necessary to allow the free flow of Arabs(Muslims) into the West and to allow the Arabs to exhibit their culture and their religion freely and to make provisions for it. This allowed millions of Arabs seeking better standards of living because of the generous social welfare benefits provided to these Arabs who had no such welfare in their native countries. This encouraged poor Arab families, especially those with large families to be able to raise, educate, and provide medical services to their families never before available to them before.  Most Arabs have been told that upon arrival in Europe they can expect and will be guaranteed such social welfare benefits immediately.  They had nothing to lose. Yet unknown to most native citizens, all this was surreptitiously willingly agreed upon by our own governments. The European Union permitted the immigrants to exploit our Social Welfare system despite their being non-contributors. Thus this silent and lucrative immigration for Arabs was too attractive to ignore, and it was all legitimate through the generosity of the EU. [2]

An Analysis: Fruits of the Euro-Arab Dialogue – Dar al Harb and Dar es-Salaam

London Demonstration Shows Hate not Peace

Having methodically traced the causes and the reasons for the EU to create the union (partnership) of Europe and the Arab nations we also observe the sudden influx of Arab/Muslim immigrants into Europe. The enormous peaceful and unopposed influx of immigrants into European nation states, as a result of the Euro-Arab Union agreements, has been unprecedented in history. The trickle of “guest workers” into France and Germany and other parts of the EU turned out to be an unstoppable tsunami. Unstoppable because the Arabs were accepted as equal partners in this frenzied obsession to counter the pre-imminence of America and to re-create a “greater France, or a greater Europe” to replace the French or German or British colonial empire that Franklin Delano Roosevelt stripped the European nations of.

This obsession to become The New European “World Power” equal to America and Russia, removed any sense of caution (of national security) in their rush to achieve these aims.France in particular, with her vast Arab/Muslim colonies should have been the first nation to realise whether she was taking on something that she could manage and control – the Jihadist Islamic resurgence – in the future.Unfortunately, most Western leaders (decision makers) were more concerned with political issues, financial issues, commercial issues, and only called upon such intellectuals to advice on such problems, but no one  ever considered the significance religion (Islam or Christianity) would play in international politics of the 20th- 21st centuries. Hence politicians never included religious dogmas and their political impact on their national policies. Religion was kicked into the long grass. This is where Western leaders, even today in the European Union, have made their biggest mistake. No one in Europe ever considered that the ideology of Islam that only accepts the One and Only god, Allah,(and vehemently rejects the God of Moses) would prove an indigestible and immiscible culture to absorb into the European way of life.
This Islamic ideology believes that until all infidels have been converted to or submit totally to the Will of Allah there will be no Peace On Earth, i.e., and that it is the incumbent duty for all Muslims to converting and land that is Dar al Harb (Land of War)  into the land of Dar es-Salaam (Dar al Islam) (the land of Peace.)  This is a matter of indisputable piety and duty for all Muslims to bring Islam to all the world. (Similar in this respect to Lenin views about communism.) Apparently, Europeans do not seem to understand this aspect of Islam and sweep it under the carpet.(1) Never did any European Union Member Parliamentarians dream that a few thousand guest workers, could in a few years swell the Muslim population from a base of less than 1.0% to around 5% of their own population in a short period of  60 years ( about 2 generations,) and the numbers are continuing to increase. No European nation has every recorded a decrease in the Muslim population, but only an astronomical increase because of the fertility rate of Muslim women, especially when Muslim men are permitted to have 4 wives at any one time.(2) Never did the EU members appreciate that Muslims could not and would not be assimilated/integrate into the European culture but would bring with them an alien, domineering, and immiscible culture that Muslims expect the native population not only to accept and submit to but to convert to.(3) Little did the EU members realise the Islam would not integrate with the European culture because it was inherent in Islam that the only culture for all peoples was the Islamic culture and with time Muslims expect Europeans to appreciate and adopt it. Also it was not possible for any Muslim to leave Islam except on the penalty of death. So Muslims would never consider converting to Christian, or other non-Muslim values, for that would amount to apostasy in Islam.All this was obvious even before the  start of the Euro-Arab Dialogue but Europeans could not or did not want to see this fact for it would have stood in the way of the partnership. So the Europeans adopted the attitude of “denial.” Essentially, this dilemma of the incompatibility and friction of the two immiscible cultures was air-brushed out of their thinking in their eagerness to build a “super-power” of Eurabia equal to that of America or India, or China. But the European Union had taken on an inflexible and uncompromising partner whose ultimate aim was to control and dominate the European Union. (In many respects it is quite apparent that European policies have deviated a long way from their Christian norms to accommodate Islamic expectations.)(4) All European leaders simply were in “denial” of the “supremacist ideology” of Islam and believed that they would be able to control their Arab guests workers when the time came like the way they handled their Muslim colonies of the past. A fallacy in their thinking. Because Islam has come of age backed up by an inexhaustible supply of wealth from oil.The major European countries today already have an Muslim population  above 5% and this Muslim population is already making demands as though they consisted of 10% of the population (punching above their weight.)

In Britain, there were already 85 Sharia courts in 2009. The British government were also compliant to Muslim demands by banning the visit of the Dutch Parliamentarian (a EU ally), Geert Wilders who was going to address the House of Lords on his film “Fitna” because Lord Ahmed, threatened to call out 100,000 Muslims to march upon Parliament if Wilders  was permitted to do so. (It is really farcical that a Muslim appointee to the House of Lords threatens the government with open defiance and rebellion and still retains his post.) Now they have also banned the visit of the American pastor Terry Jones from entering Britain (20.01.11). These are shameful British Government’s acts of appeasement to Islamic threats of violence and a “open defeat to the Freedom of Expression.”

Islam is a Religion, State and a Total way of Life

While it is conceivable thatChristians governments as well as some others, are able to separate Church and state, i.e., secularism, this same ideology is not applicable in Islam. Islam is all encompassing. It is a religion, it is State, and it is a way of life thus secularism has a totally different meaning in Islam. This quotation is from an Islamic source and illustrates the concept from an Islamic point of view:

“The West makes a natural mistake in their understanding of Islamic tradition, assuming that religion means the same for Muslims as it has meant for most other religious adherents ever since the industrial revolution, and for some societies, even before that; that is: a section of life reserved for certain matters, and separate from other sections of life.  This is not the Islamic world view.  It never has been in the past, and modern attempts of making it so are seen as an aberration.

Islam: A Total Way of Life

Islam is a “total way of life.”  It has provided guidance in every sphere of life, from individual cleanliness, rules of trade, to the structure and politics of the society. Islam can never be separated from social, political, or economic life, since religion provides moral guidance for every action that a person takes.  The primary act of faith is to strive to implement God’s will in both private and public life.  Muslims see that they, themselves, as well as the world around them, must be in total submission to God and his Will.  Moreover, they know that this concept of His rule must be established on earth in order to create a just society.  Like Jews and Christians before them, Muslims have been called into a covenant relationship with God, making them a community of believers who must serve as an example to other nations by creating a moral social order.  God tells the Muslim global nation:

“You are the best community raised for mankind, enjoining the right and forbidding the wrong…” (Quran 3:110)

Throughout history, being a Muslim has meant not only belonging to a religious community of fellow believers but also living under the Islamic Law.  For Islamic Law is believed to be an extension of God’s absolute sovereignty.

Allah is the Only Sovereign

Allah is the absolute sovereign in Islam, and is therefore the only Lord of heaven and earth.  Just as He is the Lord of the physical universe, to the true Muslim believers, God is the Lawgiver for every area of human life.  Just as He is the Master of the physical world, God is the Ruler of the affairs of men in Islamic doctrine.  Thus God is the supreme Lawgiver[1], the Absolute Judge, and the Legislator Who distinguishes right from wrong.  Just like the physical world inevitably submits to its Lord by following the ‘natural’ laws of the universe, human beings must submit to the moral and religious teaching of their Lord, the One Who sets right apart from wrong for them.  In other words, God alone has the authority to make laws, determine acts of worship, decide morals, and set standards of human interaction and behaviour.  This is because,

“His is the Creation and Command.” (Quran 7:54)

The Separation of Institutional Religion & the State

As we have mentioned, in Islam Allah is acknowledged the sole sovereign of human affairs, so there has never been a distinction between religious and state authority.  In Christendom, the distinction between the two authorities are said to be based upon records in the New Testament of Jesus, asking his followers to render unto Caesar what was his and unto God what was His.  Therefore throughout Christian history until the present times, there have always been two authorities: ‘God and Caesar’, or ‘the church and state.’  Each had its own laws and jurisdictions, each its own structure and hierarchy.  In the pre-westernised Islamic world there were never two powers, and the question of separation never arose.  The distinction so deeply rooted in Christiandom between church and state but this has “never” existed in Islam.

The Vision of an Islamic State

The vision of an Islamic state and the purpose of its political authority is to implement the divine law.  Thus, the ideal Islamic state is a community governed by the Law revealed by god (Allah). This does not entail that such a state is necessarily a theocracy under direct rule of the learned men of religion, nor is it an autocracy that vests absolute power in the ruler.  The function of the Islamic state is to provide security and order so that Muslims can carry out both their religious and worldly duties.  The Caliph  is the guardian of faith and the community.  His role is not so much checked by the ulama (religious scholars), but enhanced by them because they provide him religious and legal counsel.  He also appoints judges who resolve disputes in accordance with Islamic Law.  There is a certain level of flexibility in regards to the system of governance and its establishment in Islam, however, religion must be implemented fully into state and society. [3]

For some inexplicable reason, the EU and Westerner(those with a Judeo-Christian culture) cannot seem to understand the concepts mentioned above. i,e., “the ideal Islamic state is a community governed by the Law revealed by God (Allah).”Here are some observations:

Bernard Lewis, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Near East Studies at Princeton University, in his 2003 book The Crisis of Islam, wrote:

“The dichotomy of regnum [state] and sacerdotium [church], so crucial in the history of Western Christendom, had no equivalent in Islam.”

Jaafar Sheikh Idris, PhD, Chairman of the Founding Council at the American Open University, in a Mar. 3, 2004 essay titled “Separation Of Church And State,” wrote:

“The basic belief in Islam is that the Qur’an is one hundred percent the word of God, and the Sunna was also as a result of the guidance of God to the Prophet peace be upon him. Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of God.” 

Jamil Hamami, a Hamas leader and lecturer at Al Quds University, in a May 29, 1999 seminar posted on the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) website titled “Political Islam in the Arab World,” wrote:

“Some people think that talking about political Islam implies that there is a separation between religion and state. An in-depth look at the way and spirit of Islam would show that this is not true. Islam is state, religion and a way of life — which includes all aspects of the daily life of the Muslim — combined.” [4]

Western Masochism: Has the West Designed Their Own Demise?The ambitions of the founders of the European Union were to build a United Europe, in partnership with the Southern Mediterranean Arab nations to equal the dominance of America, the Russians, and the Asian blocs. But Europeans, considered the options and realised that to become a Union worthy of an equal voice in world affairs they had to have reliable source of energy, oil. Not realising that the Arab countries that controlled most of the oil resources also had to have buyers in order to survive, and that the Arabs and Europe were mutually interdependent. Europe had a bigger bargaining chip than they realised. But the European wanted to have a direct influence in the oil assets so they agreed to accept the Arabs as equals and conceded to all demands made by the Arabs. This meant agreeing to accept the Arabic language and culture on par with European languages and cultures and to allow the intermingling and intertwining of their cultures and ideologies into one of interdependence.
The Arabs sensing a good bargain, were not hesitant in pressing for all their demands for acceptance of Arab culture, way of life, equality of treatment, and freedom of Arab/Muslim immigration, with full privileges of all social services, and freedom of worship as their own citizens enjoyed. The European Union accepted all such conditions without any conditions. All the trump cards were now in the hands of the Arabs.(In order to appreciate the extent to which the Arabs used their “trump cards,”   it becomes obvious from the many resolutions that were made and agreed upon by the Euro-Arab Dialogues referred to in part 2, and in The Brussels Journal [5])

Can The European Culture Survive this Invasion?

Islamic immigration into Europe swelled the Muslim population from 10.7 million (1.97%) in 1950 (before the foundation of the EAD) to 42 million (5.74%) in 2010 spread across the whole of most European states after the formation of the EAD.

Assuming that these numbers are made up of women, children, and cultural (non-religious) Muslims, surveys indicate alarming trends.
Almost 25% of the British Muslims believe that the atrocities of “London’s Underground Bombings on 7/7″ were justified.
In addition another survey shows that 12% Muslims believe that Jihadist Martyrdom was justified. [6],[7].
32% British Muslims believe Jews are legitimate targets, and 30% British Muslims believe that Israel has no right to exist.
7% British Muslims believe that suicide bombings in Britain are justified. [8]
Extrapolating this into Europe as a rough guide, there are10.5 Million Muslims  in Europe (25%) who feel that bombing the local citizens to support the Palestinian cause or the anti-Zionist cause is justified, and that 2.94 Million Muslims in Europe (7%) would support Islamic martyrdom.  These figures are frightening.Even at the height of the Ottoman Empire when they occupied most of the European Mediterranean nations, the total military force of the Ottomans were between 206,000 to 258,000 men in the years 1607 and 1609.
Today the militant Muslim Islamists (10.5 Million Muslims) are already more than 40 times as many Ottoman military in Europe at the height of their occupation. [9]

Can European Culture Survive the Onslaught of Islam

To reverse this internal threat from militant Jihadists to national security of European nation states would be a task that is beyond contemplation. But unless the West is prepared to concede the struggle, it is a problem that has to be resolved some day.

With the current trend in Muslim demography in Europe there will be not be a problem for Islam to conquer Europe in the next few years without even a fight. French Enlightenment (Illuminati), in the spirit of liberalism, relativism and secularism led Christian Europe to the self destruction of their faith, Christianity. Without this faith, Europe lost its cohesiveness and its missionary zeal and belief that Christians had to proselytise their faith and foster it and to ensure its supremacy. Instead, the Christian churches, and Bishops, and political leaders retreated into bastions of religious relativism. Thus leaving their nations vulnerable to the determined, Allah fearing, uncompromising doctrine of Islam. Is the Christian retreat now irreversible or could a miracle reverse this inevitable trend? Or will something stir in the loins of the Christians for them to want to reclaim their Christian heritage? If the will to retain their Christian culture cannot be revived, then Islam will become the dominant religion and culture in Europe in the near future. Because historical evidence has shown that:

Wherever Islam has put down roots, Nothing else can grow

European nostalgia of the glories and abundance of the colonial days seemed to be fading into the past after WWII. Europeans feared declining into a third world status with massive unemployment, and loss in the standards of living they had grown accustomed to. Europe was obsessed with “social security” that provided a safety net for all. But this created a rigid social and economic system resistant to change and depended on the prosperity of their nation. Europe feared economic, political and military decline, thus world influence, compared to America and the exponential economic expansion of colossus’s like Japan,  India and China. Europe on its own, Europeans realised,  could not rebuild herself into a world power again unless she had unhindered access to energy, Oil. It was inconceivable to tie up with Russia or Central Asian energy resources, so Europe decided to join hands with Frances’ old colonial Mediterranean African nations who held massive oil surpluses?

However, in order to establish a European-Arab coalition there had to be a trade-off. A total acceptance by the Parliament of the European Union was required to accept as equals the Arabs, their Arabic language, culture, customs, economic, scientific, and cultural ambitions as equal to that of Europeans, in exchange for supporting the ambitions of the European economic and political aims for a world standing. Europeans felt it was a small price to pay for assiduously omitting, from its various declarations and policies, the need for the preservation of Europe’s Christian roots or Christian culture, yet allowing the Arabs to ensure their Islamic culture was recognised and predominant. Nowhere in any of the declarations was there any mentioned of the rights of the Christian traditions or culture, only Arab traditions and culture had to be accepted and established in Europe. By taking this approach it avoided any conflicts or stand-off’s with the Arabs from the very beginning. But this spelt the dissipation/demise of European Christianity, all agreed upon by the European Union Parliament. This was the decision that has been gnawing at the soul of Europe and destroying it ever since. An act of self destruction.

Europe was deluded in believing that she could somehow be able to afford a generous welfare state, maintain a dynamic economy, and still afford the luxury of supporting masses of Muslim and other immigrants by sharing in their welfare benefits equally, and still allow a segregated multicultural community. Whether this was undertaken as a penance for their (subconscious) guilt for their exploitation of their colonies is wondered. Otherwise their motives for their extra ordinary generousity are inexplicable. It is plain for all to see that the cost of welfare benefits, the cost of rehabilitating each immigrant family in a new country, the cost of Home Land Securities to prevent acts of Jihadism/terrorism, the cost of keeping the legal departments to defend these Jihadists and the cost for their confinement, the additional cost of our Law enforcers handling Muslims with kid gloves, the cost of placating the Muslim population for their separate multicultural (immiscible) ghetto living, is bleeding national treasuries to bankruptcy. Multiculturalism is a myth. For a nation to support an alien culture that will never integrate and whose intention is to destroy and then take over the native government into the world of Dar es-Salaam, is indeed, depravity.


[Analysis part 2, will be started in a separate article due to the length limitations.



The Arab Lobby:

Israel and Europe:

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: