Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Fallaci: Warrior in the Cause of Human Freedom

By Robert Spencer

“We are gathered here tonight,” announced David Horowitz, “to honor a warrior in the cause of human freedom.”

Oriana Fallaci, who received the Center for the Study of Popular Culture’s Annie Taylor Award in New York Monday evening, has been a warrior for human freedom ever since she joined the anti-fascist resistance in 1944, at age fourteen. For over six decades, she has fought against those she has labeled “the bastards who decide our lives,” opposing all forms of tyranny and oppression, from Mussolini and Hitler to Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. She amassed a fearsome reputation as an interviewer, recounting of Ariel Sharon: “‘I know you’ve come to add another scalp to your necklace,’ he murmured almost with sadness when I went to interview him in 1982.” Other scalps on her necklace include that of Henry Kissinger, who termed his interview with Fallaci “the most disastrous conversation I ever had with any member of the press.” While interviewing the Ayatollah Khomeini, Fallaci called him a “tyrant” and tore off the chador she had had to wear in order to be admitted to his presence. According to Daniel Pipes in his introduction of Fallaci Monday night, she is also apparently one of the few who ever made the irascible old man laugh.

Today, at seventy-five years old, Fallaci still stands for freedom. She is suffering from cancer. She stated with her usual directness at the Taylor Awards ceremony: “I shall not last long.” But she has dedicated the four years since 9/11 to trying to awaken her native Italy, Europe and the world to the magnitude global jihad threat, which most analysts continue, whether from willful blindness, ignorance, or a misplaced strategic imperative, to misapprehend. Pipes noted that “she has her differences with the President. When he says that Islam a ‘religion of peace,’ she has said, ‘each time he says it on TV? I’m there alone, and I watch it and say, “Shut up! Shut up, Bush!” But he doesn’t listen to me.’”

And it isn’t, of course, just Bush. Fallaci spoke fervently Monday evening about how Western nations are selling their own homelands and culture to their mortal enemies. “We seem to live in real democracies,” she said, “but we really live in weak democracies ruled by despotism and fear.” Western elites – government and media – are paralyzed by fear, afraid to speak out against the life-destroying aspects of the Sharia law that Islamic jihadists want to impose on the rest of the world. The risk of offending Muslims is, in their calculus, apparently greater than the risk of national or civilizational suicide. Alexis de Tocqueville, according to Fallaci, explained that in dictatorial regimes, despotism strikes the body: the dissenter is tortured into silence. But in democratic regimes that have succumbed to corruption, despotism ignores the body and strikes at the soul. One is not tortured for dissent; instead, one is discredited for it. To affirm the patent fact that Islam is not a religion of peace today renders one “unelectable,” or “bigoted,” or beyond the bounds of what is fit to print. In despotic democratic regimes, Fallaci observed, everything can be spread except truth.

That is indeed the present-day situation. Most of the liberal and conservative mainstream not only will not feature trenchant criticisms like Fallaci’s of the violent and supremacist impulse within Islam; they will not even discuss them. Those who, like Fallaci, speak the truth about the motives and goals of the jihadists are vilified and marginalized, while the purveyors of comforting half-truths, distortions and lies fill the nation’s airwaves and newsprint. Fallaci herself faces the most frivolous of frivolous lawsuits in Italy for defamation of Islam; a Muslim group tried to have banned her searing, passionate response to 9/11, The Rage and the Pride.

Why does all this happen? In her speech Fallaci explained that it was to a great degree because “truth inspires fear.” When one hears the truth, one can only be silent or join the cause. It is a call to a personal revolution, an upheaval, a departure – perhaps forever – from a life of ease and comfort. So most will prefer not to hear the truth -- in no small part because of the difficulty of living up to it. Yet the real heroes, she said, are “those who raise their voices against anathemas and persecution,” while most succumb -- “and with their silence give their approval to the civil death of those who spoke out.”

“This,” Fallaci declared, “is what I have experienced the last four years.” She described how, since 9/11, the whole of Europe has become a “Niagara Falls of McCarthyism” – with the new Grand Inquisitors of the Left persecuting and victimizing all others. “In Europe, we too have our Ward Churchills, our Noam Chomskys, our Michael Moores, our Lewis Farrakhans.” And they are doing immense damage to the unity, will and cultural identity of the people. In Europe as in America, the new thought police ban Christmas observances to avoid offending Muslims; history is rewritten to depict Islam as having built a civilization of peace and mercy (regardless of the preponderance of evidence to the contrary), while Europe’s own Judeo-Christian civilization is regarded as “a spark of a cigarette – gone.” A spent force. In Leftist-controlled municipalities, police stand idly by while Muslim hooligans demonstrate their contempt for European society and culture by urinating upon and otherwise desecrating churches. Fallaci: “This is considered ‘freedom of expression’ – unless the offense is committed against Muslims.”

Meanwhile, the “religion of peace” myth and other falsehoods that interfere with our ability to defend ourselves are propagated aggressively by elected officials, the media, the Hollywood elite, and the justice system. Defenders of freedom are stripped of credibility and denied the means to get their message across. Or if they do get it across, they are not believed. “I really feel as a Cassandra,” said Fallaci, “or as one of the forgotten anti-fascists.” Yet she wears the Left’s attacks with defiant pride. “Since I wrote the trilogy (La Rabbia e l’Orgoglio (The Rage and the Pride), La Forza della Ragione (The Force of Reason), and L’Apocalisse (The Apocalypse), my real medals are the insults I get from the new McCarthyists.”

Fallaci told the audience that she faced three years in prison in Italy if convicted in her trial for hate speech. “But can hate be prosecuted by law? It is a sentiment. It is a natural part of life. Like love, it cannot be proscribed by a legal code. It can be judged, but only on the basis of ethics and morality. If I have the right to love, then I have the right to hate also.”

Hate? “Yes, I do hate the bin Ladens and the Zarqawis. I do hate the bastards who burn churches in Europe. I hate the Chomskys and Moores and Farrakhans who sell us to the enemy. I hate them as I used to hate Mussolini and Hitler. For the cause of freedom, this is my sacrosanct right.”

What’s more, Fallaci pointed out that Europe’s hate speech laws never seem to be used against the “professional haters, who hate me much more than I hate them”: the Muslims who hate as part of their ideology. While Fallaci faces three years in prison in Italy, “any Muslim can unhook a crucifix from a wall in a school or hospital and throw it into the garbage,” with little fear of consequences. Also unprosecuted, she said, were those responsible for a vile little publication entitled Islam Punishes Oriana Fallaci, which urges Muslims to kill her, invoking five Qur’anic passages about “perverse women.” In Italy Fallaci must be guarded around the clock; but no effort has been made to bring those who threatened her to justice.

Yet for all the isolation and the verbal abuse to which her enemies have subjected her, Fallaci remains indomitable – and has found an unlikely ally in Pope Benedict XVI, whom she warmly praised Monday night. Fallaci, who identified herself as an atheist (a “Catholic atheist”), was the first individual granted a private audience with the new Pope. She stated that the Islamic challenge had opened up a void in the West that only spirituality could fill – “unless the Church also misses its appointment with history. But I don’t think it will.”

Despite these warm words for the Pope and the ancient institution he heads, however, Fallaci announced that at the risk of disappointing many of her hearers, “I am not a conservative. I don’t sympathize with the Right more than I do with the Left. I cannot b associated with the Right or with the Left.” Why not? Because, she said, both Right and Left have been guilty of the “abuse of democracy, demagogic egalitarianism, denial of merit, tyranny of the majority, and lack of self-discipline” that are sapping the strength of Europe today. “Europe’s Islamic invasion has been backed by the Left, yes. But it would never have reached the point it has if the Right had not been complicit.”

Another indication of that complicity was, according to Fallaci, the American Right’s support for the entry of Turkey into the European Union – which both Fallaci and her friend in the Vatican oppose. “European citizens do not want Turkey in our home. Condoleeza Rice should stop exercising realpolitik at our expense.” And in America, she asked why the Right was so complacent before Leftist outrages such as the ongoing war against Christmas, the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse, the amending of the noise ordinance to allow for the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers (but not church bells) in Hamtramck, Michigan, and others. Why, she asked, was Ward Churchill not fired for calling the 9/11 victims “Little Eichmanns,” while Michael Graham was fired for suggesting that Islam might have something to do with present-day terrorism?

This, Fallaci concluded, is the war we are really fighting. “I do not see Islamic terrorism as the main weapon of the war that the sons of Allah have unleashed upon us. It is the bloodiest, but not the most pernicious or catastrophic aspect of this war.” Far more dangerous to the West in the long run is unrestricted Muslim immigration, which already has brought at least 25 million Muslims to Europe (not counting, Fallaci said, the huge numbers of illegal aliens). That number will double by 2016 and, as Bernard Lewis and others have predicted, almost certainly create a Muslim Europe by 2100.

Yet all this immigration has not been accompanied by integration and assimilation – not because of European racism, but by the Muslims’ own choice. Fallaci noted that many other groups have assimilated into European societies, but Muslims have not. “They don even care to learn our language. They only obey the rules and laws of Sharia.” They do not want to learn European ways; rather, “they want to impose on us their own habits and way of life. They have no intention of integrating with us. On the contrary, they demand that we integrate with them.” Today’s Islamic expansionism, therefore, does not need the armies and fleets with which the Ottoman Empire once terrorized Europe. It only needs the immigrants, whom short-sighted politicians and befuddled multiculturalists continue to welcome. Fallaci said that Europeans – French, Dutch, Germans, English, Italians – are about to reach the status of the Comanches, Cherokees, and Sioux: “We will end up on their reservation.” She noted that some Muslim spokesmen, confident of their imminent supremacy, already refer to non-Muslim Europeans as “indigenous people” or “aboriginals.”

What to do about all this? Establish dialogue with Muslim leaders? Try to strengthen moderate Islam? Fallaci was dismissive of both options. Muslims have no intention of entering into genuine dialogue with non-Muslims, she said, and “I do not believe in moderate Islam. What moderate Islam? Is it enough not to cut heads off? Moderate Islam is another invention of ours.” Adopting Western dress, she said, was easy; adopting Western values was not.

Then Fallaci threw down the gauntlet to the multicultural, politically correct, and fearful. “There is not,” she asserted, “good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.” As jarring as such language is to contemporary sensibilities, Fallaci here made a statement of fact that can be verified or disproved. And indeed: Islamic terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and others have never hesitated to quote the Qur’an copiously to justify their actions. It remains for those who identify themselves as moderate Muslims to convince violent Muslims that they are misusing the Qur’an – if indeed they are – and should lay down their arms. They have had no notable success in this so far.

Fallaci’s a voice of rare courage. “I am not as young and energetic as you are,” she told the crowd Monday night. “I am hopelessly ill. I shall not last long.” When she is gone, we may hope – for all our sakes – that many others will be ready to step into the breach and speak the truth as she did, whatever the cost, as she did. As Oriana Fallaci so memorably demonstrated in her address on receiving the Annie Taylor Award, nothing less than our civilization itself is at stake.


David Letterman... "Top Signs There's Global Warming": I just bought ocean front property in Topeka, Kansas; Glaciers are receding faster than Letterman's hairline; "Cool Ranch" Doritos really "Lukewarm Ranch" Doritos; Ed Sullivan Theater is now a balmy 48 degrees; No shirt, no shoes? You still get service; Average temperatures have risen one degree over the last one hundred years—One degree! That's what this is all about?!

Jay Leno... It's TGIF. Do you know what that means? Thanksgiving is finished. ... Did anyone have one of these turduckens? Do you know about these? It's a turkey stuffed inside a duck stuffed inside a chicken. That pretty much sounds like the bird flu trifecta! ... The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade has a new slogan, "Incoming!" ... You probably heard this story—the M&M balloon in the Macy's parade struck a light post and was punctured, injuring some spectators. That's when you know you're in New York—even the balloons are mugging people. ... Al Gore said [recently] that global warming is more serious than terrorism. Unless the terrorist is on your plane, then that extra half a degree doesn't bother you so much. ... According to the Pentagon, Iraq detained 83,000 terror suspects, enough to fill a football stadium. You know what you call a football stadium filled with terrorists in this country? Oakland Raiders' games. ... Yellowstone National Park officials say the elk population has mysteriously dropped from 17,000 to 8,000 starting the very day they reintroduced wolves back into the park. What's the mystery there? Fat lazy elk and mean hungry wolves—what could possibly go wrong? ... John Kerry has been picked for jury duty. He was elected foreman. Well, after two weeks of campaigning and spending $12 million of his wife's money, he got it! ... Imagine John Kerry on [a] jury? How long are those deliberations going to take? I voted guilty before I voted not guilty.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

'Hitler' wins Palestinian primary elections


Terrorist known for 'brutal policies' one of many militants victorios

By Aaron Klein
© 2005

JERUSALEM – A terrorist known in his hometown as "Hitler" – both for his physical resemblance to the German dictator and for his policies – has swept local primaries and will represent his district for the ruling Fatah party in upcoming Palestinian legislative elections, according to Palestinian sources.

Jamal Abu Al-Rub, a leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, won the Fatah primaries in the northern Samarian village of Qabatya, just outside Jenin, election officials say. He was one of dozens of terrorists and militant leaders to dominate the local elections.

The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, founded in 2000, is a terrorist group responsible for dozens of deadly suicide bombings and hundreds of shooting attacks against Israeli civilians.

Al-Rub has publicly executed Palestinians his group suspected of collaborating with Israel and is accused by the Jewish state of planning several terror attacks.

A source close to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, speaking on condition of anonymity, told WND, "If you ask around in the West Bank who is Abu Al-Rub, most people won't know. But when you ask them about the guy nicknamed Hitler, everyone knows exactly who he is."

Continued the source: "While the nickname came because of his looks, he is known more as Hitler because of his policies. He runs a tight ship in his town through fear and intimidation. And he not only calls for executions but personally carries them out in public so everyone can see what happens when 'Hitler' thinks you collaborated with Israel."

Also yesterday, Palestinian election officials certified the landslide primary win of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades Founder Marwan Barghouti, who is serving multiple life terms in Israeli prison for planning suicide bombings and shooting attacks. Israel accuses Barghouti of orchestrating the Intifada, the terror war launched by the Palestinians in 2000.

Barghouti took 96 percent of the votes to head Fatah's roster in Ramallah, spurring calls from Palestinians and some Israeli ministers for his immediate release.

Chief Palestinian Negotiator Saeb Erekat told WND, "He should be freed, period. Israel should not have arrested a Palestinian official in the first place."

Yossi Beilin, leader of the far left Meretz party and an architect of the 1993 Oslo Accords, said, "I think today there is no doubt that he is one of the top leaders in the Palestinian street. Barghouti heads one of the Palestinian camps that do want peace and so this is the moment to end his sentence ... in preparation for an historical peace agreement with Israel."

Meanwhile, the primary elections scheduled to be held yesterday in Gaza were postponed after Fatah gunmen stormed Gaza City polling stations and complained about irregularities in voter lists. According to witnesses, the gunmen fired into the air and burned tires in the streets. No injuries were reported.

Earlier, gunmen had ransacked the office of an online newspaper in Gaza City, destroying furniture and equipment and threatening to kill the editor-in-chief reportedly because the media outlet published a report critical of a Palestinian Authority official running in the primaries.

Aaron Klein is WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, whose past interview subjects have included Yasser Arafat, Ehud Barak, Mahmoud al-Zahar and leaders of the Taliban.

Monday, November 28, 2005

Honoring Oriana Fallaci

By FrontPage Magazine

Today, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture (CSPC) will be presenting the Annie Taylor Award to renowned Italian journalist and author, Oriana Fallaci. Ms. Fallaci is being honored for her heroism, valor, and lifetime struggle against oppression and fascism. Since 9/11, Fallaci has been a formidable force in the fight against the greatest threat to Western civilization since the Cold War, Islamofascism.

The Annie Taylor Award is given to individuals who have shown exceptional courage against great odds and in the face of great danger. Ms. Fallaci faces constant threats to her life for writing the truth about radical Islam and the global jihad. She is truly one of the few individuals alive today who are deserving of this esteemed award.

Ms. Fallaci will be introduced by Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, Campus Watch and Islamist Watch. Her speech is entitled "The European Apocalypse: Islam and the West." David Horowitz, founder of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Front Page Magazine, and author of the recent book "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American West" will speak about Ms. Fallaci's lifetime achievements as well.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Trading with Sudan: Another Example of Self-Serving German Corporate Greed

(By Ray D.)

We all know that several German companies did booming business with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. And over the past several years, while the German media repeatedly lectured Americans about ties to unsavory governments, German Chancellor Schroeder was busily traveling the world with German industrial moguls, ringing up billion dollar corporate deals in nations like Saudi Arabia, China, Russia and Kuwait.

Right now the German media and numerous politicians are up in arms over alleged CIA flights of detainees that might have landed on German territory, thereby possibly violating German law regarding human rights. But virtually no one in the German media is upset by the story (detailed below) of German business dealings with Sudan, a government responsible for genocide in Darfur that is also on the US list of state sponsors of terror.

And to top it all off, the German government is actually encouraging German trade with Sudan through the Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor. Just this year the ministry sponsored a "German Pavilion" at a trade fair in the Sudanese capital and hopes to do the very same next year because of so much "positive feedback from the German participants." (Here is the floorplan with the names of the German companies and organizations that attended the 2005 trade fair in Khartoum.) Somehow this does not seem entirely consistent with Germany's self-styled role as a "peace power" and force for human rights in the world.

Here are excerpts on the story from an outstanding blog named "Atlantic Review":

"Genocide: U.S. calls for more sanctions against Sudan, but Germany sees business opportunities
The German media is very critical of any wrong doing by the US government, a few US soldiers and many US companies. Hedge funds were not just characterized as bloodsuckers, but as American bloodsuckers. German companies receive less criticism. Sometimes they even receive government support for doing business with rogue states.

The Sudanese government is complicit in the genocide in the western province of Darfur, but the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor sponsored a "German Pavilion" at a trade fair in the Sudanese capital in February 2005 and will do so again in February 2006 due to "the positive feedback from the German participants," according to a chamber of commerce.

The German participants of this year's fair included Siemens AG (capital goods), AgfaPhoto GmbH (capital goods, consumer goods), AutoStar Ltd. (authorized Mercedes Benz dealer for Sudan Automobile Industry), DEUDIAM (diamond tools and machines), KWH (plastic pipe equipment), SMF (liquid goods packaging machines), Vietz (pipeline equipment, welding technology), and WIDOS (plastic welding machines, tools).

Whereas Germany wants to increase business relations with Sudan, the U.S. Senate called last week for multilateral sanctions against the Sudanese government, a strengthening of the arms embargo and accelerated and expanded assistance to the African Union, whose peacekeeping troops patrol Darfur. The U.S. added Sudan to its terrorism list in 1993 because it was a safe haven for terrorist groups."

Read the entire piece here. And the next time you hear some holier-than-thou leftist in Germany bashing the US on human rights and corporate greed, be sure to send them this link. It may not completely shut them up, but it will give them something to think about...

More on this story in German at Neokomplott and Extrablog. Both are attempting to start letter writing campaigns on this issue...

And here is the contact information for the sponsors of the German exhibition in Sudan:

(German) Federal Ministry of Economics and Labour (BMWA)
Villemombler Str. 76
D-53123 Bonn
Phone: +49 (0)1888 615-0
Fax: +49 (0)1888 615-4436

Update: Our outstanding partner blog, Extrablog, informs us that it actually originated the campaign to raise awareness about German trade with Sudan. Just another demonstration of why we need a strong blogosphere in Germany. Keep up the good work Olaf!

(Hattip: Extrablog, Joerg W.)

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Koran-burning Hero

British Dhimmitude Watch

A classic Christopher Marlowe play has been censored in London, out of fear that it might provoke a violent reaction from followers of the Religion of Peace™: Marlowe’s Koran-burning hero is censored to avoid Muslim anger.

IT WAS the surprise hit of the autumn season, selling out for its entire run and inspiring rave reviews. But now the producers of Tamburlaine the Great have come under fire for censoring Christopher Marlowe’s 1580s masterpiece to avoid upsetting Muslims.

Audiences at the Barbican in London did not see the Koran being burnt, as Marlowe intended, because David Farr, who directed and adapted the classic play, feared that it would inflame passions in the light of the London bombings.

Simon Reade, artistic director of the Bristol Old Vic, said that if they had not altered the original it “would have unnecessarily raised the hackles of a significant proportion of one of the world’s great religions”.

The burning of the Koran was “smoothed over”, he said, so that it became just the destruction of “a load of books” relating to any culture or religion. That made it more powerful, they claimed.

Du bist Nazi II

How about: "We are all good Germans"?

Germans are down in the dumps about themselves. Terrible economic growth may be the main reason, but then there is always the weather, the food, and uncomfortable questions about what Dad or Grandpa did during the war. Or maybe it is just living next door to the French.

So the German government did what any ineffective bureaucracy would: it hired an advertising team to dream up and promote a feel-good slogan, spending over thirty million dollars to propagandize its own citizens.

But apparently, somebody forgot to do the research on who else used the slogan. You might think that with a certain nationalistic strain in the background, one would be fairly careful about picking a slogan about how great Germans really are. Then again, the national anthem still is called “Deutschland uber alles” come to think of it.

The Telegraph of London (via the Washington Times) reports:

A multimillion-dollar campaign to boost Germans’ low self-confidence has backfired after it emerged that its slogan was coined by the Nazis.

The $34 million “Du Bist Deutschland—You Are Germany”—campaign was devised to inspire Germans to stop moaning and do something good for their country.

Beethoven, Einstein and the sports stars Franz Beckenbauer and Michael Schumacher have been cited in advertisements encouraging Germans to take more pride in their homeland.

But a historian from Ludwigshafen has provoked an uproar with his discovery that the same “Du Bist Deutschland” cry was used at Nazi rallies in the 1930s.

Stefan Morz uncovered photographs of a 1935 Nazi convention in which soldiers display a banner reading, in Gothic script, “Denn Du Bist Deutschland (Because You Are Germany).” The slogan was topped with the head of Adolf Hitler. Leading Nazis such as Hermann Goring and Joseph Goebbels attended the event.

I would encourage the new Chancellor Angela Merkel, who seems to have some good instincts, to re-think the whole slogan business. I realize that as the leader of a coalition government, she doesn’t have much real power to change things much. And the fundamental problem of crushing taxes and a social welfare state that people like (tax-supported spa cures!) doesn’t look solvable, even if it is wrecking the economy.

There are just too many comic possibilities when one starts to think about slogans for Germany.

Thomas Lifson

Du bist Nazi - Forgettable Moments In German Marketing

When a country finds itself demoralized, usually someone in the government thinks that a blend of Norman Vincent Peale and Madison Avenue will rejuvenate the nation -- rather than actually fixing the problems. Britain tried it in the 1960s with the "I'm Backing Britain" campaign. Gerald Ford laughably tried to stop inflation by getting people to stop buying goods to "Whip Inflation Now", and handed out those silly WIN buttons. These efforts usually show nothing more offensive than a desire to avoid the painful process of fixing problems that popular but destructive policies have wrought.

Leave it to Germany to inadvertently add offense to stupidity. With their social net strangling their economy and facing a raft of hard choices, someone thought spending £20 million on an ad campaign to boost German self-confidence. However, no one thought to do any research on the slogan selected -- Du Bist Deutschland (You Are Germany) -- until a historian came up with a photo of a little wet blanket of an item from the 1930s.

The £20 million Du Bist Deutschland - You Are Germany - campaign was devised to inspire Germans to stop moaning and do something good for their country.
Beethoven, Einstein and the sports stars Franz Beckenbauer and Michael Schumacher have been cited in advertisements encouraging Germans to take more pride in their homeland.

But a historian from Ludwigshafen has provoked an uproar with his discovery that the same Du Bist Deutschland cry was used at Nazi rallies in the 1930s.

Stefan Mörz uncovered photographs of a 1935 Nazi convention in which soldiers display a banner reading, in gothic script, Denn Du Bist Deutschland (Because You Are Germany). The slogan was topped with the head of Adolf Hitler. Leading Nazis such as Hermann Göring and Joseph Goebbels attended the event.

While the Nazis used many such slogans, the awful parallel comes from the similar intent between the two uses: to convince Germans that they can make their country great again. Most disturbingly, the new campaign uses Albert Einstein as one of the icons of their advertising campaign -- a man who had to flee Germany because of the Nazi takeover and the coming genocide of the Jews in Europe.

No one thinks that the advertising campaign signals the return of the Nazis. Ironically, one of the reasons given by the government for the campaign was to throw off the depression of association with the Nazis and their horrible crimes against humanity, although using Einstein for that purpose seems a bit crass, considering the circumstances. It does demonstrate a certain amount of vacillating and foot-dragging on behalf of Berlin and a lack of intestinal fortitude to actually take on the real problems Germany faces. One would have hoped that they, of all people, would understand that public spectacles do nothing but distract people from the real solutions necessary to solve their long-term economic failures.

Friday, November 25, 2005


The Simon Wiesenthal Center protested the endorsation of terrorism in French high school textbooks and urged French Education Minister Gilles de Robien to immediately have the books withdrawn.

A letter to Minister de Robien from Dr. Shimon Samuels, the Center's International Liaison Director, points to a newly published book, Students Under Influence (Elèves sous influence), Editions L. Audibert, Paris 2005, written by history-geography teachers Barbara Lefebvre and Eve Bonnivard, which is "a shocking indictment of French high school texts."

Samuels continued, "Following the disturbing 2002 study of antisemitism in the classroom, The Lost Territories of the Republic, (Les Territoires perdus de la République, Mille et une nuits, Paris), the current report focuses on incitement to terrorism," pointing to three examples from school text publishers, analyzed by these researchers:

- Magnard's manual for the matriculation diploma class: Terrorism "is the arm of the weak who, unable to frontally attack a great power, try to destabilize it by taking on symbolic targets"

- Bordas: Jihadists are "protesters" who reach a broader audience "in the context of opposition to Israel and the United States"

- Bordas: Islamism's seduction is in its rejection of "Western paramountcy and the American model of globalization"

- Nathan and Belin: "The presence of Western troops in the Gulf region increases the sense of humiliation among Arab opinion"

The Centre's Secretary-General for France, Richard Odier, stated that, "such simplistic conclusions blur any nuance or historical perspective. They are flimsy excuses to scapegoat America and Israel. Such apologia for mass murder not only violate the secularist spirit of the French Republic, but are in contravention of United Nations and European Union provisions against incitement to violence and terrorism, adding, "Indeed, by inculcating a pedagogy that justifies suicide bombing and the cult of death, French high schools may be held complicit by victims of subsequent Jihadist atrocities à la Madrid or London."

The Centre urged the Minister to "take appropriate measures to withdraw these inflammatory textbooks from the National Education system, and to monitor all current and future acquisitions that glorify, endorse, or justify any form of terrorism."

A related letter to the Paris-based United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation's (UNESCO) Assistant Director-General for Education, Peter Plympton Smith, called for "highest priority to be placed upon France in the UNESCO school textbook review programme."

The Centre emphasized to the Minister that "the current wave of immigrant community youth riots across France, must not be exacerbated by school teachings that grant respect to ideologies of death. Indeed, these rioters are already made vulnerable by hatemongering clerics and Internet sites, and need no further encouragement." No guarantee, no malaise, no sense of humiliation can ever justify violence.

The call concluded, "The school curriculum must condemn all forms of hate, violence and terrorism - not endorse them."

For further information, please contact Shimon Samuels at +33.609770158, or Richard Odier at +33.147 23 76 37.

Here's What We Mean by German Media Bias...

(By Ray D.)

How would you expect the German media to react if two weeks of violent rioting broke-out in the United States and President George W. Bush failed to respond to the crisis for the first ten days?

Certainly, one could expect numerous articles pointing to the "social decay" of the American system and the dangers of too little "state" and too great a reliance on "free markets" and "capitalism" as was the case during the Katrina tragedy. And, without a doubt, one could absolutely expect to see the cover pages of magazines like "Der Spiegel" and "Stern" filled with the usual images of condescending Schadenfreude, accompanied by headlines such as, "America in Flames" or "Riots: The Forgotten Americans" or "Chaos in America: Social Injustice Explodes".

One could also expect, with a high degree of certainty, that the riots would be interpreted as evidence that George W. Bush is under further "massive pressure" and on the brink of failure and impeachment. The media would scream ceaselessly about the fact that Bush did not react immediately and wonder over and over and over again: "Where was the cavalry?!" Bush would again be portrayed as the purveyor of a cold, heartless and unjust political vision founded upon neo-conservative, capitalist principles that have supposedly left America devoid of "social justice". The media would further point the finger at the Bush administration and accuse it of complacency despite "having known" conditions were rife for social unrest.

But none of that happened. Why? Because the riots took place in France and the president was Jacques Chirac.

Even more "conservative" magazines like "Focus" also took little if any note of the riots on their cover-pages. Why might that be? Why are the French treated with such discretion while the Americans are attacked, impugned and abused at every opportunity? Why are the same German media that so diligently seek-out scandal and disorder in the United States so content to downplay and even ignore such issues in France?

The answer to these questions is simple: Ideology. The French elites have grown to be the greatest intellectual allies of the German elites. They stand for the same model of "social democracy" and resistance to what is perceived to be "American-style" global capitalism. To criticize the failings of the French would be to criticize ones' own failings. To expose the many flaws of the French "social" system would be to expose the many flaws of the German "social" system. To overemphasize the failure of the French to integrate minorities and end discrimination in housing and the workforce would be to overemphasize the same failings in Germany. To question the viability and stability of French multiculturalism in the face of a rapidly increasing Muslim minority would be to question the same in Germany. To scrutinize the impacts of mass unemployment in Paris would be much like scrutinizing the impacts of mass unemployment in Berlin.

And so German media don't criticize, expose, overemphasize, question or scrutinize the French as they would the Americans.

And when people come to this site and ask us what we mean by "bias" in the German media, we can point to no better example than the recent lack of salacious, drooling coverage of the French riots that one could have expected with absolute certainty had the riots taken place in New York or Los Angeles. One need only look at the cynical, Schadenfreude-filled reaction to Katrina in the German media to erase any doubt about that.

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Spielberg steps in it

Warning signs are already out and should be for the coming Steven Spielberg movie on the Israeli effort to hunt down those who participated in, or planned the Munich massacre in 1972. In an article in the LA Weekly about the movie, the clear spin is that it will be a great film: nuanced, balanced, thoughtful, and all the other good stuff. Friends of Israel will wonder of course how balanced a movie can be under the weight of the heavy hand of Tony Kushner, an anti-Israel playwright, who was Spielberg’s choice as screenwriter. . . Spielberg has not said much about the movie, but made one statement about it to a New York Times interviewer that is quoted in the LA Weekly article:

“Viewing Israel’s response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms. By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today.”

So the slaughter of Israel’s Olympic athletes is a “tragedy” and Israel’s response to capture or kill those responsible is classified as a “horrific episode”, which over time raised “troubling doubts” among the Israelis involved. . What more do you need to know about the film?

This would be similar to describing 9/11 as a tragedy, and our response in Afghanisan as a horrific episode. It is a level of “thinking” that puts one on a par with Chris Matthews, who recently told a college audience that we need to stop hating our enemies, and just understand them better. Yes, we in he West can benefit from talking more to those who murder athletes, behead journalists, and blow up mosques and tall buildings. Our problem is that we are not talking enough to Zarqawi and Bin Laden, to get to understand them better. Sure, and FDR should have hit Japan hard with more understanding after Pearl Harbor.

Spielberg seems to believe that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is resolvable, if only the two sides talked a bit more with each other, and stopped fighting. Note the involvement of Dennis Ross as an advisor to Spielberg on the film. Ross knows from talking to both sides. It was his job. He did it between 1991 and 2001 almost nonstop. And all that talk eventually ended when Yassar Arafat decided enough talk, now let’s get on with a suicide bombing campaign.

For the heroes of Hollywood, living their sheltered existence in mansions on each coast, every conflict is resolvable, if only each side took the time to understand the “other” a bit more, and talked more and fought less. In the real world it is not so easy. But Hollywood is not the real world.

Richard Baehr

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

EU Martyrs Brigade

By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen

The Palestinian Authority has yet to comply with even one agreement they have signed since the Oslo Accord. They have violated the Oslo agreement, Oslo II, and the Road Map. Each agreement required the PA to disarm its terrorists and to empower its “security forces” to protect the safety of Israelis as well as Palestinian Arabs.

On September 13, 1993, after Arafat signed a Declaration of Principles on the White House lawn, he appeared on Jordanian TV to explain that the agreement was simply part of the PLO's staged plan for Israel's destruction. “Since we cannot defeat Israel in war,” he said in that broadcast, “we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

Indeed, from 1993 through September 2000, while the Oslo negotiations were still ongoing, the Palestinians killed 256 Israeli civilians and soldiers and wounded thousands more. Since then, 1,086 more people have been killed, and nearly 6,5000 were wounded in more than 26,000 Palestinian terror attacks.

Not to break with tradition, the PA announced plans to breach the Agreed Principles for Rafah Crossing, implementation of which was scheduled for November 25. The agreement requires, among other things, that “a liaison office, led by the 3rd party, will receive real-time video and data feed of the activities at Rafah and will meet regularly to review implementation of this agreement, resolve any disputes arising from this agreement, and perform other tasks specified in this agreement.”

But PA Director of Borders and Crossings, Salim Abu Safiyyeh, declared on November 17, “that there won't be any live video streams to the Israeli side via the surveillance cameras installed in Rafah terminal,” according to a press release posted by the Palestinian National Authority State Information Service. He went on to elaborate that ”even the joint control room will not receive these live feeds, and will be only for the presence of the third party that will monitor the borders.”

The Rafah Crossing agreement was initiated by the European Union, which is also, the 3rd party assigned to observe its fulfillment. The PA, encouraged by the EU’s lack of respect for international law as was demonstrated by its refusal to designate Hizballah as a terrorist organization, declared that it will not honor the agreement.

In October, EU officials met with Hizballah representatives in Lebanon, arguing that such meetings would help to moderate the organization. Today’s attacks on Israel by the Hizballah, attest to the complete failure of such diplomacy.

The EU’s willful blindness concerning terrorism against Israel is not limited to Hizballah. The EU was the major funding source for the PA’s security services during the Intifada. Not even Palestinian records documenting that EU funds were diverted to pay for terror attacks against Israel, committed by PA security forces (Tanzin, Force 17, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade), convinced the EU to stop its funding.

Considering the past, if the US is serious about achieving peace in Israel, it should not leave this task to the EU, but demand that the PA comply with the Rafah agreement as well as all the other agreements it failed to keep.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, is director of American Center for Democracy and member of the Committee on the Present Danger and Alyssa A. Lappen is a freelance journalist who frequently contributes to FrontPageMagazine and other online journals.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Radical Muslim's Final Solution

By Barry Rubin

Even by the Middle East's usual hyperactive standard, these have been turbulent times. Just reading a list of the latest horrific, shameful, and amazing developments is pretty awesome.

Iran's president calls for Israel's extinction. The confident assertions of "Never again," a few years ago--regarding another round of anti-Jewish genocide--might now be better rephrased, "Here we go again." It is encouraging that many Western countries denounced the speech. But actually, the story of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement is even worse than you think. See below for the facts most of the world's media left out.
Speaking of Iran, at the recent Frankfurt Book Fair, perhaps the world's most prestigious, Iran's official exhibition sold such works as the discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion and anti-Semitic works some of which were reprints of volumes published originally under Nazi auspices.
So Tehran is now the reincarnation, at least in matters concerning Jews, of the Third Reich. Even added to Iran's avid pursuit of nuclear weapons, is the world actually going to do anything about this?
A UN report concluded that high-ranking Syrian officials, including relatives of President Bashar al-Asad, assassinated former Lebanese President Rafiq Hariri.
Another UN report finds that huge numbers of companies, current or former government officials, and public personalities were bribed by Saddam Hussein for supporting his regime or paid kickbacks for doing business with it. There is evidence that some of this money, paid to a leading French parliamentarian, went to subsidize President Jacques Chirac's political party.
In a number of interviews in both the Arab and Western media, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar made clear that if Hamas wins a future election it will establish a radical Islamist state which will fight on until Israel is destroyed. At home, this regime would impose a radical Islamist state more extreme than what exists in Iran and refuse to disarm. On the contrary, it would use the Palestinian Authority's military assets--largely financed and supplied by the West--to attack Israel. The Islamist government would also cut off all ties with the West and reject any negotiations with Israel.
The leader of the Iraqi insurgency called for a "jihad" to kill the maximum number of Iraqi Shia, who comprise about 55 percent of the country's population. There was an overwhelming lack of criticism in the Arab world, which largely supports the insurgency, about this threat against fellow Arabs and Muslims.
Naturally, given the above list of events, one would assume that Iran, Syria, and Hamas are now seen as outlaws which the world will fight, boycott, and sanction. It might further be taken for granted that the apologists for Saddam Hussein, and now for the Iraqi insurgency, would be completely discredited. No way.

Let us return to Ahmadinejad's speech for some additional background. But I will tip you off in advance on one key point: read Ahmadinejad's words and then try to find some difference between his ideology and that of Usama bin Ladin. It is precisely the same world view even though, of course, Ahmadinejad's inspiration is Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Islamist Iran.

To a large extent the Western media spin put on the speech was that the Arab world rejoiced in the speech because it would further isolate Iran, rather than the more obvious point that much of the Arab world agrees with what Iran's president said.

At any rate, it might be worth noting that:

Hamas, Hizballah, and Islamic Jihad were officially represented at the "World without Zionism" meeting as a demonstration of their goals and orientation.
Israel was largely declared as evil because it was really the spearhead of a Western attempt to destroy Islam.
Not only was it easy and desirable to destroy Israel but the United States should also be wiped out.
In still another direct threat, he warned that any Muslim country that recognizes Israel would face the wrath of all Muslims, i.e., Iranian-sponsored terrorism.
The idea that Palestinian groups should put an issue on getting an independent state or improving living standards was an Israeli trick to divert them from eliminating Israel and encourage them to fight among themselves.
In a future Palestine, Jews would have no rights since they had only come to the country from far away to plunder the country.
No matter how bad the strategic situation looks or how much it costs, the Muslims should battle on for as long as it takes to destroy Israel.
Of course, as many observed, the prospect that Iran does have long-range missiles and might have nuclear weapons to use in carrying out such a threat makes the new president's words even more worrisome. Yet there are more wide-ranging aspects to the danger. After all, even if Iran did have nuclear weapons they would have a more immediate effect for intimidating the local Gulf States. It should also be noted that outside of Saudi Arabia most Gulf Arab states are increasingly indifferent to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But what the speech really shows is how millions of young Muslims are being systematically indoctrinated with the idea that they should sacrifice living standards, democracy, and common sense in pursuit of the fantasy of destroying Israel and defeating the West. Few will become suicide bombers; many more will participate actively in encouraging their own societies to commit suicide.

Barry Rubin is Director of the GLORIA Center of the Interdisciplinary Center. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, is now available in paperback and his latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, will be published by Wiley in September. Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at

Monday, November 21, 2005

Kurty in the Slaughterhouse

A formerly great writer goes off the deep end: US author lauds suicide bombers. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as “very brave people” and used drug culture slang to describe the “amazing high” suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush. Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was “sweet and honourable” to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

“They are dying for their own self-respect,” he said. “It’s a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It’s like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you’re nothing.”

Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: “I regard them as very brave people, yes.”

He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman’s 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. On the Iraq war, he said: “What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back.”

Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an “amazing high”. He said: “You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high.”

Muslim Fanatics terrorize the Netherlands

At The Australian, Anthony Browne has a must-read piece about the murderous intimidation being practiced in the Netherlands by Islamic jihad groups: Muslim fanatics terrorise a nation.

And if I haven’t mentioned it lately, Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a heroine of the highest magnitude.

A FILM about gay rights should hardly raise an eyebrow in The Netherlands, which for centuries has prided itself as a beacon of freedom of expression and was the first country to legalise gay marriage.

But when Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee turned Dutch MP, started making a new film about the oppression of homosexuals under Islam, the threat to everyone taking part was deemed so great that she decided there would be no faces shown on screen and no end credits and that the entire production team would remain anonymous.

Ali, a “lapsed Muslim” who revealed this week that she had finished the script, lives in a safe house under 24-hour protection.

The precaution is as wise as the courage is extraordinary: Theo van Gogh, the director of Ali’s previous film, about domestic violence under Islam, was killed — repeatedly shot and almost decapitated in broad daylight in the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic extremist.

Impaled on a knife in van Gogh’s chest was a five-page note declaring holy war on The Netherlands and threatening death to other public figures deemed “enemies of Islam”.

A year after his murder, The Netherlands is a country transformed. Previously, only the Queen and Prime Minister had police protection, and ministers cycled to their ministries.

Now, many politicians, writers and artists are considered to be in such danger that they have permanent armed guards and are driven around in bomb-proof armoured cars. The Interior Ministry has set up a special unit assessing death threats from Islamic extremists and providing protection squads.

Sunday, November 20, 2005

The EU Constitution Lives!

Only political suckers really believed that the European Union would listen to the voters after they decisively voted against its bizarre draft Constitution last May. The EU is a piece of bureaucratic imperialism that has built up an unstoppable head of steam over thirty years. It has never bothered with democratic procedures. After the No vote, not a thing really changed. In fact, the voters’ disapproval of the Constitution just freed up the bureaucrats to do what they wanted to anyway. This is all part of the very bizarre Disney World of Europolitics.

Yesterday The Telegraph of London reported that:

“Children as young as eight are being taught that the controversial European Constitution is up and running – even though it has been rejected by voters.

More than 100,000 copies of a textbook claiming the constitution will help the EU run “like clockwork” have been distributed to primary school children on the continent.

... The teaching material, entitled ‘Europe, My Home,’ features two children, Lea and Thomas, who are guided through the complexities of the EU by a character called Good Father Houpette.

“You will be astonished by what I will tell you,” Father Houpette tells them. “You will see that the EU is a necessity.” [snip]

There is no mention of the fact that the constitution was rejected by French and Dutch voters.

“Some people might argue that the constitution is dead,” said Willy Helin, head of the (EU) commission’s embassy to Belgium. “But it is still on the table. The only thing that has been decided is that there will be a period of reflection.”“

Yes, that’s what we thought.

Again and again we are just astonished with the complete passivity and – let’s call it like it is – the willful stupidity of the voters of Europe.

Whatever freedoms they have ever had are simply slipping away, and few people care. Already people have been arrested in Britain for saying politically incorrect words in public.

And yet, Europe’s dictatorial elites keep stumbling from one gigantic mistake to the next. Its most socialist economies are in steep decline, and its demographic trends will lead to disaster long before global warming raises temperatures by more than a single degree.

The peoples of Europe are constantly bombarded by self-serving lies from the elites, which are swallowed whole. The EU’s own auditing agency has never approved a single budget because so much fraud and abuse is built in that the money is simply not traceable.

The French riots exposed widespread social rot that everyone in France already knew about. But Brigitte Bardot was hauled into court and fined a few years ago for calling attention to it in public.

Telling the truth is Streng Verboten, and the voters keep electing parties that do nothing but lie to them.

So it’s hardly a surprise that the EU is teaching propaganda to young children. The trouble is that ultimately, reality always smacks wishful thinking in the face. We don’t know when and how the European project, in its current dictatorial form, will come to grief. Perhaps when Iran’s nuclear weapons are within range of Paris and Berlin, and Europe suddenly discovers why it likes America again. Or perhaps, as Mark Steyn believes, Europe is simply on its way out, as native population grow older without having children, and unassimilated immigrants take over.

James Lewis is a frequent contributor.

James Lewis

Saturday, November 19, 2005

Ambassador for Bribe

The London Telegraph reports this morning that a senior French diplomat has confessed to accepting money from Saddam Hussein in exchange for his access to and influence with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The former UN ambassador for France claims that the allocations given to him through Tariq Aziz came in recognition of his "work for the Iraqi people", but nonetheless acknowledges its illegality:

One of France's most distinguished diplomats has confessed to an investigating judge that he accepted oil allocations from Saddam Hussein, it emerged yesterday.
Jean-Bernard Mérimée is thought to be the first senior figure to admit his role in the oil-for-food scandal, a United Nations humanitarian aid scheme hijacked by Saddam to buy influence.

The Frenchman, who holds the title "ambassador for life", told authorities that he regretted taking payments amounting to $156,000 (then worth about £108,000) in 2002.

The money was used to renovate a holiday home he owned in southern Morocco. At the time, Mr Mérimée was a special adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general.

This provides one of the most direct links between the corruption in the Oil-For-Food program and the Secretary himself. His own aide -- someone outside the OFF structure -- took bribes and kickbacks during a period when M. Mérimée held a unique position that could assist Iraq in pushing the UN delicately on any number of issues. It shows that Saddam Hussein not only had corrupted the UN to the point where he could use the humanitarian aid program as his own personal ATM (low-end estimates show at least $1.5 billion going into his pockets), but with Mérimée on the payroll, influencing the direction of the UN itself.

Why didn't this make the German media today? The last we heard of M. Mérimée, the French had detained him briefly for questioning on OFF. Now that he's confessed, a large piece of the twelve-year Iraqi quagmire at the UN is now clear. It sheds light not just on the corruption at Turtle Bay but a major reason for twelve years of inaction on Iraq's consistent defiance of UN resolutions, and the UN's curious lack of effort in enforcing them. It would explain why the US and UK alone on the Security Council finally had to take action to hold Saddam accountable for his intransigence.

And yet the German media seems to have missed this story, according to this Google search.

After the details do emerge, we will want a full reckoning from Annan on his administration of the UN. Perhaps we might actually get his resignation, the only honorable way out for the massively incompetent Secretary-General who has led the UN to its worst period of disgrace. Given his track record, though, it will take the General Assembly to kick him out -- and given their track record, they will uphold their dishonorable reputation as a den of thieves instead.

Friday, November 18, 2005


The United Nations has failed in its effort to wrest control of the Internet from the U.S.—for now. UN secretary general Kofi Annan was joined this week by 40 world leaders to discuss who will have the power to control, censor and ultimately profit from the Internet, on which the global economy increasingly relies. They did succeed in setting up a new "Internet Governance Forum" (IGF) as a "watchdog" for other governments and businesses. Watching of the "watchdog" will certainly be required.

From its humble beginnings as a Pentagon communications-redundancy network, to the world-wide net today, the Internet has enormous influence, though its only regulator is an obscure American company called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers). Countries with histories of censorship, like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, want to prevent private access to uncontrolled information. China has already cajoled Google, Microsoft and Yahoo into accepting censorship. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are openly proud of their filter controls. The EU, with its position unclear, may become the power broker in this debate.

This Week's "Alpha Jackass" Award: light-weight Philosopher Glucksmann

"French intellectuals have maintained their silence, despite more than 6,000 burnt-out cars, wrecked schools and vandalized creches, and the one death resulting from the riots that have raged since October 27. Now, at last, the philosopher Andre Glucksmann has spoken out with a provocative thesis: The disturbances are not the result of alienation but a sign that the young rioters are becoming integrated. 'They are integrating themselves by the very act of setting cars alight, even by the fact that they are setting people alight,' he told the German newspaper, the Franfurter Rundschau. According to Glucksmann, negation is a typical form of French integration. 'All parties in France, business, the workers and so on, believe that something can be achieved by violence,' he told the daily." —German journalists Sabine Glaubitz and Nicola Wanner on French intellectuals' response to the country's recent riots—truly a Foucaultian moment.

Iran's War on the Jews

By Avigdor Haselkorn

In the wake of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad call to “wipe Israel off the map,” two schools of thought have emerged. One argues that the statement was part of Iran’s internal politicking and an effort to rekindle the revolutionary regime’s waning ideological fervor. The other maintains the speech is the clearest indication yet why Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons spell trouble. Both groups display a surprising disregard of Iran’s actual anti-Israel strategy.

Instead of waiting for Iran to finish Israel off, attention must be focused on the war Iran is currently waging against the “regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem].” This decade-old war is based on sponsoring and supporting Palestinian and Shi’a terrorism and has proven safe, effective and relatively cheap.

Iran is employing terror groups to achieve four aims: first, some terror organizations are in fact part and parcel of Iran’s own defense posture. For instance, by equipping it with thousands of long-range rockets, Iran transformed the Lebanese terrorist organization Hizballah into an organic arm of its strategic deterrent to dissuade an Israeli preemption of its evolving nuclear weapons program. Second, Tehran sponsored terror attacks on Israel are designed to divert it from going after Iran. In this way, Iran has been able to open a second front in its terror war. Third, through its proxies, Iran is at war with Israel without being directly involved, diminishing the likelihood of an Israeli response against Iran. Indeed, by opting to go after the perpetrators of terror rather than its sponsors, Israel has buttressed Iran’s rationale for its indirect strategy. Four, by constantly supporting Palestinian violence and undermining any efforts to reach an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, Iran not only assures its strategic goals are advanced, but also acts to weaken Israel should a conflict erupt.

Iran’s often repeated thesis that terrorism will lead to Israel’s destruction has so far been mainly a propaganda ploy designed to make sure attacks on Israel continue. Ahmadinejad apparently also toed the line. “A new wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy the Jewish state,” he promised. The Iranian President is hoping that as Iran is getting closer to crossing the nuclear threshold, terrorist attacks on Israel mount so as to shield his nuclear program. He must be concerned that the growing international alarm over Iran’s nuclear aspirations would not somehow legitimize an Israeli preemption. He is also worried that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza could advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians and so free Israel’s hands to act against Iran. “I hope,” Ahmadinejad said, “that the Palestinians will maintain their wariness and intelligence [vis-à-vis any Zionist peace tricks], much as they have pursued their battles in the past 10 years. This will be a short period, and if we pass through it successfully, the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple.”

But it would be a mistake to think that Ahmadinejad’s urgings display the usual Iranian application of terrorism. Recent Israeli moves, its retreats from Lebanon and especially Gaza, might have convinced Tehran that terrorism may indeed be a strategic weapon which would bring Israel’s demise. Likewise, America’s difficulties to quell the terror campaign in Iraq have undoubtedly further solidified this Iranian perception. It is not by chance that Ahmadinejad referred to the downfall of the USSR as an eloquent demonstration of the power of “our holy hatred.”

Thus, the timing of Ahmadinejad’s call for the elimination of Israel is significant. Under this interpretation, the pronouncement is tantamount to publicly throwing the gauntlet to Israel. Iran it appears is seeking to demonstrate to its terrorist allies that Israel has been so frazzled that it will not even respond when an open call for its destruction is made.

The Iranian leader is betting that the escalation of the ongoing terrorist war will spell Israel’s death by a thousand cuts even before Iran can wield its nuclear power: “Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable,” he declared.

Either way, an intensification of the terror war against Israel is imminent. In the name of coping with a putative (demographic) danger, the retreat from Gaza has directly led to heightening an immediate threat to Israel’s survival.

Avigdor Haselkorn is the author of The Continuing Storm: Iraq, Poisonous Weapons and Deterrence (Yale University Press).

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Goebbels Redux

By David Bedein

A generation after Nazi Germany launched a campaign to exterminate the Jews, a new German government is underwriting a campaign to create Judenrein (Jewish-free territory) in parts of Israel.

Consider that one worrying aspect of cultural life in the Palestinian refugee camps is film screenings that motivate the Palestinian "refugees" to long for a so-called "right of return" to villages that most of their ancestors left in 1948, even though those villages were turned into Israeli communities after that war. These films are organized through the Cine Club, a project of the Palestinian Diaspora and Refugee Center, also known as the Palestinian advocacy group, Shaml. Shaml is registered with the Palestinian Authority's Organizational Registrar and the Cine Club is but one initiative in their systematic effort to build a powerful Palestinian movement that will possess Israel in its entirety by implementing the "right of return,” that is, a policy that envisions Israel's destruction as the ultimate end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That much is public knowledge. What is generally unknown is that the agency that sponsors the Shaml organization is not an Arab entity. Rather, it is the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, funded by the German Social Democratic Party, which receives direct funding from the German government. According to the Ebert Foundation's website, its primary mission is "promoting peace and understanding between peoples."

The German sponsored Shaml touts UN resolution 194 as proof that an absolute "right of refugee" return exists. That article states that:

Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

The resolution also applied to the 650,000 Jews who fled Arab countries for Israel in 1948, though this never seems to be part of the equation for Arabs seeking a peace settlement. But Resolution 194 does not guarantee return as a right. Instead—and the distinction is key—it makes any possible return conditional on the agreement of two equal governments providing peace for their citizens.

Such inconvenient details have not kept Palestinian organizations from proclaiming the “right of return” a codified fact. Besides Shaml, the Ebert Foundation also aids the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA). In 2004, PASSIA published a bulletin, still in circulation, titled "Palestinian Refugees.” In it, PASSIA purports to offer "facts" and "proof" establishing the "right of return,” though in fact neither are to be found in the bulletin. (The publication does highlight the role that the Friedrich Ebert Foundation’s support played in its production.)

Cohre, the Geneva-based Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, is yet another Palestinian entity that campaigns for the "right of return." Scott Leckie, Cohre's director, was a member of the PLO's Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees, a less-than-impartial position.

Today, Cohre has teamed up with Badil, The Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, another leading Palestinian advocate for the "right of return." The Cohre Activity Report of 2000 – 2002 reveals their joint intention to shape international law to satisfy their demand for Israeli land. It notes that "Cohre and Badil are planning to jointly hire a lobbyist to co-ordinate a campaign to change policies within various UN agencies and States with regard to the right of Palestinian refugees to repossess the properties confiscated by Israel since 1947.” On page 72 of the Cohre Activity Report, it praises the support provided for the "right of return" campaign by The Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

Badil, for its part, was recently denied membership to the U.N. Social and Economic Council. The reason, according to NGO Watch, was that Badil's "extremist anti-Israel political agenda is incompatible with universal human rights norms." This is evidenced by their 23rd Occasional Bulletin of December 2004. In it, Badil candidly reveals that the scope of the Palestinian "right of return" entails nothing less that the destruction of the Jewish state. It states:

"The real Zionist opposition to return is that that return would alter the demographic balance in Israel so much that it would destroy Israel's Zionist, exclusionist character. This, of course, is true. But the preservation of this character of Israel is neither an international responsibility nor a moral-juridical-political fact that outweighs in importance the restoration of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people."

When the president of Germany, Horst Kohler, visited the Israeli Knesset in January, 2005, Gila Finkelstein, Israeli Member of the Knesset, made sure to note the Ebert Foundation’s funding of an extremist Palestinian agenda. Waving PASSIA’s bulletin at Kohler, she walked out of the Knesset. Finkelstein then requested and received an appointment with German President Kohler. She used the opportunity to express her outrage that Germany would ever fund an effort that supported the "right of return,” which, she pointed out, was a code name for dismembering the state of Israel. Kohler expressed his concern and promised to look into the matter. He didn’t look very hard. In April, Kohler wrote to Finkelstein that he relied on the professional judgment of the Fredrich Ebert Foundation.

In contrast to the lofty goals of peace and reconciliation advocated by the German government publicly, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation has aligned itself with the most virulent proponents of the Palestinian "right of return." It is operating with funds traced directly to the German government, and is openly subsidizing groups that seek to dismember the state of Israel.

How dispiriting to behold that sixty years after the Holocaust, the German government is once again sponsoring the annihilation of the Jews.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

What Paradise?

By Pierre Rehov

As a filmmaker of the new documentary Suicide Killers, I will tell you that Hany Abu-Assad’s film Paradise Now is an artistically fashioned fiction. A dangerous fiction about dangerous people in a dangerous world. As fiction, his film stages good and bad characters. And since the film is about the final days of life for two suicide bombers, the killers automatically become the heroes.

Hany Abu-Assad tries to portray his heroes as human beings. On this, I could not agree more. In his interview with Newsweek, he says the Palestinians “wanted to see these characters as superheroes, as almost inhuman in their great powers.” “Suicide Killers,” as I call them in my documentary, represent the saddest of human tragedies in their denial of life for death.

Depending on our point of view, we could justify anyone’s behaviour. The temptation would be great to make a film on Charles Manson or Jack the Ripper from an inside perspective that excuses their actions, just as we could rationalize Nazism by the poverty in which the Versailles Treaty emerged from Germany in the twenties. But in all cases—including suicide bombings—it’s important to identify the real causes and not make them up. Unfortunately, when we deal with the issues of Moslem expansion, the desire for Islamic world domination, the intolerance of Occidental culture, the Muslim extremists’ rejection of the modern world, their inferiority of women, and the glorification of jihad and shahada, the conclusion is always the same: to blame Israel or the United States.

Presented from the Palestinian point of view, moderate or otherwise, suicide bombings are the result of occupation, oppression, lack of freedom, and the desire for cultural pride. All of this reasoning is a lie. A myth. I spent hours speaking with would-be suicide bombers in Israeli jails and with their families in Gaza, Jordan, the West Bank and inside Nablus, where Paradise Now was filmed. And I am sorry to tell the Jury of the Amnesty International Award and the Best European Film Blue Angel Award and whoever is ecstatic about the courage and the sacrifice of these supposed heroes that they are just manipulated kids, victims of a system and a culture, or, as Dr. Boaz Ganor from the Hertzliya Center for Studies on Terrorism puts it, “stupid bombs and smart bombs at the same time.”

In the daily life of these so-called heroes, everything is structured to make them believe in a martyr-mythology. And while it is not pleasant to live under curfews and to have to cross checkpoints everyday, no one seems to remember that there were already suicide killers in the days of the Oslo Process when the PLO was in charge of security and when the borders were widely open. In those days, I used to visit friends in Galilee, and we would go to the Jenin open market as easily as to the mall of any Israeli city.

I was surprised and happy to read the Newsweek article about Mr. Abu-Assad being nervous two hours before the screening of his film in Tel Aviv. In Tel Aviv? Yes. Absolutely. I wonder how many survivors of suicide attacks attended this “premier?” Also, I wonder when a Palestinian, or any Arab television or cinema will ever feature a film about the Holocaust, for instance, not to mention a film presenting the Israeli point of view of the actual conflict? Stupid me: I forgot. According to most Arabs, the Holocaust never existed except in the minds of the Zionists, for use as propaganda, with an agenda to conquer the world.

But let’s not be too political. Back to our suicide “heroes.”

From what I heard directly from many aspiring to “shahada” (martyrdom) that I interviewed in prison, and in the streets of some Palestinian towns and villages, you do not start thinking about becoming a suicide killer in reaction to an Israeli tank. The idea starts in the mosque. Yes, where, every Friday, most Imams mix up religious and political sermons, where they say that the Jews are the descendants of Apes and Pigs, deserving no mercy after having betrayed God himself, and killed most of the Prophets. And next, the idea is further advanced by Palestinian television where those sermons are mixed up with video clips showing Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian women and targeting children. And where numerous programs stage “martyrs” talking from heaven about the delights of the afterlife, and of the 72 virgins waiting for Allah’s good servants. And then later in the streets, the kids who have been poisoned against the Jews in the mosques and on television, play “martyrs and Jewish pigs” the same way western kids play cowboys and Indians.

And finally, all of this organized incitement that structures a religious aim behind a political one would not be sufficient to compel any kid to sacrifice his life in the massacre of innocent civilians if this were not orchestrated within a highly repressive culture. Visiting Gaza, talking to students, to women (who were in grave danger just because they were talking to me), I could apprehend the mechanics of a civilization capable of creating such “heroes.”

Imagine a world where separation between men and women is virtually absolute. Where not only sex is a taboo, but where a woman’s body is considered to be so impure that it must be hidden at all times. Where women are second-class citizens and where a teenage girl can be slaughtered by her own father, brother or cousin, if only she is suspected of having lost her virginity. These crimes of “honour” take place almost on a daily basis, although very few enthusiastic viewers of “Paradise Now” talk about it, or even know about it.

In this chauvinistic land, a 16- or 18-year-old boy has a 99% chance of having never touched the hand of a girl nor having spoken to one, except for his sister. At this age where libido is at its peak, a young male is in need of these beautiful and forbidden sensations. He needs to prove to himself that he is a man, a future man. But, in this arena, there is no hope—only frustration. Dating and flirting are forbidden. Marriage is the only tolerated path to sex in the Muslim world. But without money there is no wife.

Ironically, while women are the object of the highest contempt, while the temporal existence of flesh is considered despicable (“seek for death, and eternal life will be given to you”— Prophet Mohammad), the promise of eternal life surrounded by 72 virgins is popularized daily through every arm of the Muslim media.

The misguided kids I interviewed while shooting “Suicide Killers” spoke of the 72 virgins with total conviction. “No one knows how much Allah would have given me in heaven if I had succeeded,” said one of them, who described his ideal target as a mall, a school or a hospital in Netanya.

Yes, suicide bombers are humans who draw our sympathy for the insidious cycle of lies that pervade their lives. But as long as films like Paradise Now perpetuate the myth that they are heroes standing up to a cruel oppressor, the line for new suicide bombers will continue to grow longer. This film promotes a lie that spells continued death and destruction without the possibility of progress for the Palestinian culture and its future generations. It celebrates the beauty of their selfless sacrifice, shows them as having nothing to lose, and elevates what in real life is senseless slaughter to noble action rewarded in heaven. However, in a fiction, everybody forgets the pain of their dead victims and their families, and the young kids who “survived” a terror attack but are condemned to live with paralysis or blindness or even without a face, like in the worst horror movies.

The threat of suicide bombers now goes far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian borders—to London, Bali, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq and Jordan—and where will it end? Suicide bombers are not heroes. To be a hero, you must make a choice. And in their culture, suicide bombers have no choice.

Nightlines V

David Letterman... "Top Signs You've Run A Bad Campaign": Campaigned a month in Ohio before realizing you're running in Iowa; You endorsed your opponent; Campaign coverage always includes phrase "Pantless Candidate"; Bird Flu? Your idea; Encouraged supporters to get out and vote this Thursday; You've pledged to "Tax America back to the Stone Age"; In the debates, you ignored the issues in favor of hilarious "Yo mama so fat" jokes; Your slogan: "I will destroy you"; You brag about having the magnetism of Gore and the intellect of Bush.

Jay Leno... Republican Senator Charles Grassley has asked the oil companies to use some of the billions of dollars of profit they've made recently to help poor people buy home heating oil. That's when you know you're making too much money. When Republicans start noticing. ... The oil companies said they would like to help the poor people but they need all that money to buy more senators. ... Democrat Senator Jon Corzine won the Governor's race in New Jersey, despite the fact that his ex-wife attacked him in TV ads. He was also accused of having a number of affairs. So at least he's a traditional Democrat. ... The CIA is investigating who leaked the story that they have secret prisons in Europe. They are furious and say if they find the person who did it, they will send them to a secret prison Europe. ... French police are claiming they have things under control pointing out that three nights ago 1,500 cars were set on fire and two nights ago 600 cars were torched but last night only 400 cars were destroyed. Does that sound like things are under control? Sounds more like they're running out of cars. ... France said today they are going to deport all those foreigners who rioted. You know what that means? France is finally going to send people to Iraq! ... Bill Clinton and Hillary are in Israel. That's what the Mideast needs—two more people who are fighting over there.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

"Eurabia" Defined

The flames consuming thousands of automobiles, and the occasional bus, nursery, warehouse, and school across France are the result of tragic – in the original sense of the word – set of decisions made by the leaders of Europe, motivated by greed, jealousy, and hubris. The dream of a Europe restored to preeminence, isolating and vanquishing the upstart Americans, via a rock-solid alliance with the Arab world, has become a nightmare. The French cannot acknowledge their problem precisely because they cannot admit the folly of the policies pursued for the last three decades as the bedrock of their highest diplomatic, political, and economic ambitions.

The intifada raging in France for almost three weeks, has been characterized by overwhelmingly Muslim rioters engaged in acts of wanton destruction, punctuated by claims of “territorial control” over sections of various French cities. In the context of this ongoing havoc, one sees repeated references to the term “Eurabia” by journalists and other media and academic elites, who, almost without exception, have no idea about the concrete origins, or significance of this term.

The use of the term “Eurabia”, as noted by the scholar Bat Ye’or (in her seminal analysis, Eurabia-The Euro-Arab Axis, released earlier this year) was first introduced, triumphally, in the mid-1970s, as the title of a journal edited by the President of the Association for Franco-Arab Solidarity, Lucien Bitterlein, and published collaboratively by the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Middle East International (London).

The articles and editorials in this publication called for common Euro-Arab positions, at every level – social, economic, and commercial – and were contingent upon the fundamental political condition of European support for the Arab (and non-Arab) Muslim umma’s jihad against Israel. These concrete proposals were not the musings of isolated theorists – they in fact represented policy decisions conceived in conjunction with, and actualized by, European state leaders, their ministers of foreign affairs, and European Parliamentarians.

Eurabia, as Bat Ye’or has demonstrated, now represents a geo-political reality, envisioned in 1973 through a system of informal alliances between the countries of the Arab League and the nine countries of the European Community (EC), which became the European Union (EU) in 1992. Various alliances and agreements were elaborated at the top political level of each European Community country with the representative of the European Commission, and their Arab counterparts within the Arab League. This system was synchronized under the rubric of an association called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), created in July, 1974 in Paris. A working body composed of committees always presided over jointly by a European and an Arab delegate, planned the agendas, and organized and monitored the application of decisions.

The comprehensive Euro-Arab collaboration included both domestic and foreign policy issues, ranging from economic matters to immigration. The joint Euro-Arab foreign policy, advanced at international forums and NGO meetings was characterized by anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, along with simultaneous efforts towards delegitimation of Israel, and promotion of Arafat’s PLO. The EAD also established close cooperation domestically between the Arab and the European print, television, and radio media, publishing houses, academic and cultural centers, student and youth associations, and the tourism industry. Church interfaith “dialogues” were a major influence on the development of this policy. Eurabia thus represents a strong Euro-Arab network of symbiotic associations which cooperate on political, economic, and cultural issues.

Eurabia involves not only an intricate web of agreements covering a remarkably broad range; it is essentially a political project for the total demographic and cultural symbiosis between Europe and the Arab Muslim world. Israel will eventually dissolve, according to the design of this project. America would be isolated and challenged by an emerging Euro-Arab continent, linked to the entire Muslim world, and invested with tremendous political and economic power in international affairs. The policies of “multilateralism” and of “soft diplomacy” express this deepening symbiosis. The Euro-Arab agreements are merely the tools for the creation of a new extended Mediterranean “continent.” Eurabia is also based on a vision of Christian-Muslim reconciliation, built on anti-Zionism, strongly advocated by major Christian religious bodies, and often espousing a new hybrid Islamo-Christian replacement theology.

Respective European and Arab goals for the Eurabian project, are summarized by Bat Ye’or. First, the European ambitions: to play a defining political role in international relations in competition with the United States, and independent of its influence; maintain important spheres of influence in the former European Arab colonies; open huge markets for the European Economic Community’s products in the Arab world, especially in oil-producing countries; secure supplies of petroleum and natural gas to Europe; make the Mediterranean a Euro-Arab inland sea by encouraging massive Arab immigration into Europe, and favoring Muslim immigrants; create Euro-Arab populations by promoting multiculturalism with a strong Islamic presence in Europe; develop a powerful Islamo-Christian symbiosis against Israel, orienting Europe toward Islam, and liberating Christianity from Judaism, which is viewed by some anti-Semitic factions as the embodiment of evil. The Arab partners, in turn, demanded from Europe: alignment with their anti-Israeli policy; modernization of their countries; access to Western science and technology; European political independence from the United States, and separation of the trans-Atlantic allies; measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Arab and Islamic culture in Europe.

Bat Ye’or traces the development, evolution, and major characteristics of these policies and practices over the past thirty years, while examining their consequences for the European continent, and Europe’s relationships to America and Israel.

During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become, “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy”. By January 1969, the Second International Conference in Support of the Arab Peoples, held in Cairo, in its resolution 15, decided

“…to form special parliamentary groups, where they did not exist, and to use the parliamentary platform support of the Arab people and the Palestinian resistance.”

Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric. [At present it has burgeoned to over six hundred members—from all major European political parties –each active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament.] The Parliamentary Association’s explicit policies mimicked the 23 resolutions of the 1969 aforementioned Cairo Conference. This has become a permanent feature of how the Parliamentary Association operates- adopting identical positions, even verbatim language, derived from prior joint Arab League-Western European policy meetings, or even exclusive international Arab and non-Arab Muslim conferences.

The Parliamentary Association has endeavored to promote Arab interests and demands within each European party and Parliament, and in the European Council. The Association functions as a powerful extension of Arab lobbying efforts against Israel, pressuring European governments, for example, to adopt economic and academic boycotts directed at the Jewish State. The other principal organs of the Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute, the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission, and the MEDA program that manages substantial European funds allocated to Arab countries.

These associations, through their committees and subcommittees, maintain complete coordination between the Western European and Arab parties in the political, economic, and cultural realms. As a result, the European Community stands apart from the United States by consistently backing Arab claims, and Palestinian policies, and stubbornly insisted (right up until his recent death) on Arafat as the unique and exclusive representative of the Palestinians. European emissaries of the Dialogue also work incessantly attempting to bring the American government into line with Arab anti-Israeli positions. Bat Ye’or has highlighted this shared Euro-Arab political agenda:

• recognition of the Palestinians as a distinct people; up to 1973 they had been known as Arab refugees; • recognition of the PLO and its leader Arafat as unique representative of the Palestinians; • obligation for Israel to negotiate exclusively with Arafat; • a global and not a separate peace; • retreat of Israel to the1949 armistice lines; • Arab-Islamic sovereignty in Jerusalem; • European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy; • demonization of Israel, as a threat to world peace; • moralization of the Palestinian jihad as a just war against the injustice of Israel’s existence; • placing the Palestinian problem at the epicenter of international politics. • delegitimization of Israel with all the attendant negative consequences that follow.

Parroting Arab League declarations, the phrase “legitimate inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” is repeated mantra-like in European political pronouncements, but as Bat Ye’or notes,

We would seek in vain the definition of the rights of Kurds, Berbers, Copts or any other pre-Islamic indigenous inhabitants of the Middle East, including Jews—these peoples are never mentioned.

This political agenda has been reinforced by (and now mirrors) the deliberate cultural transformation of Europe. Euro-Arab Dialogue Symposia conducted 20 to 25 years ago, i.e., in Venice (1977) and Hamburg (1983), included recommendations, below, that have been successfully implemented, accompanied by a deliberate, privileged influx of Arab and other Muslim immigrants, in enormous numbers:

• Coordination of the efforts made by the Arab countries to spread the Arabic language and culture in Europe and to find the appropriate form of cooperation among the Arab institutions that operate in this field. • Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centers in European capitals which will undertake the diffusion of the Arabic language and culture. • Encouragement of European institutions either at University level or other levels that are concerned with the teaching of the Arabic language and the diffusion of Arabic and Islamic culture. • Support of joint projects for cooperation between European and Arab institutions in the field of linguistic research and the teaching of the Arabic language to Europeans. • Necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans. • Necessity, when teaching Arabic, of emphasizing Arab-Islamic culture and contemporary Arab issues. • Necessity of cooperation between European and Arab specialists in order to present an objective picture of Arab-Islamic civilization and contemporary Arab issues to students and to the educated public in Europe which could attract Europeans to Arabic studies.

Eighteen months ago, Bat Ye’or summarized the bitter harvest Western Europe was reaping from the sociopolitical and cultural changes it had sown:

Arab and Islamic anti-Israeli propaganda, barely disguised in academic and cultural packaging…disseminated by organs of the Euro-Arab Dialogue operating under the highest state authorities and imposed in universities, the press, and cultural centers. Dissidents, whether in religious, political, or cultural circles…marginalized or reduced to silence…Within this Europe transformed into a Euro-Arab continent hostile to the United States and Israel, transnational, transcontinental Judeophobia is structured in the fusion of two hatreds-European Antisemitism, and Arab-Muslim Judeophobia. This incendiary mixture formed the pillars of the Euro-Arab alliance against both Israel and the United States. The dialogue committees condition European mentalities to the new cult of Palestinianism. This ideology of hate melds Christian and Islamic Judeophobia, including the principles of replacement theology, expressed as both Christian, and finally Islamic supersessionism against Israel, which is condemned to disappear…Israel[‘s] usurped history and identity are projected onto the Palestinians. Traditional European Antisemitism and Islamic jihad are fused within the structures and geopolitics of Euro-Arabism; in this process, European anti-Americanism and Judeophobia come together within the Euro-Arab ideology.

Europe’s hidden war against Israel is wrapped in the Palestinian flag, and is part of a global movement that is transforming Europe into a new continent of dhimmitude within a worldwide strategy of jihad and da’wa, the latter being the pacific method of Islamization…this policy of dhimmitude for the Euro-Arabian continent…entitled “Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Region” (Note the orientation of the map on the cover page, which, “corresponds to the world view of the Arab cartographers of the Middle Ages”, and no doubt their contemporary descendants, i.e., the Southern Mediterranean littoral on top of the Northern!) was accepted by the European Union in December 2003. Unfortunately, the policy of “Dialogue” with the Arab League nations, willfully pursued by Europe for the past three decades, has promoted European dhimmitude and rabid Judeophobia.

In the wake of the continuing French intifada, Bat Ye’or’s analyses have profound implications for Western Europe - which may be incapable of altering its Eurabian trajectory; her research may be even more important for the United States if it wishes to avoid Europe’s fate:

Th[e] Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society. Its countless functionaries, like the Christian [devshirme]-janissary slave soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy. Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory. Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel. Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities. Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization. Americans should know that this self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people. Finally, Americans should understand that Eurabia’s contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.

Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and author of the recently released, The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books.

Andrew G. Bostom