The Euro-Arab Dialogue and The Birth of Eurabia (Engels)

Door: Bat  Ye’or

Bat Ye’or is the author of The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (1985/2003); The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. From Jihad to Dhimmitude (1996/2002); Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2002/2003). This article is an English translation of “Le Dialogue Euro-Arabe et la naissance d’Eurabia” in Observatoire du monde juif, Bulletin n° 4/5, Décembre 2002, pp.44-55, (78 avenue des Champs Elysées, 75008 Paris).

In 2001 a wave of Judeophobia swept violently over Europe; it coincided with the intensification of the al-Aqsa intifada from September 30, 2000. This simultaneity was not fortuitous. In Europe, governments, some of the Churches, and most of the media in fact approved of the 2nd intifada, using fine moral terms for what was a strategy of terror by the Palestinian leadership. The justification and negligence displayed toward these criminal aggressions amounted to an encouragement. The elimination of terrorist leaders was described as ‘assassination’ and the Hamas and other terrorists became  ‘fighters for freedom’ and ‘activists’. While Hamas was translated as a ‘Resistance’ movement, Israel was accused of ‘state terrorism’. Especially in France this condemnation sanctioned the criminal acts committed mainly by immigrants of Arab-Muslim origin, against individuals and Jewish community  property. Even in 2003 the French government still refused to place Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organizations, Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin was sharply reprimanded by President Chirac for having said that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization.

The convergence between the specific policies of the European Union (EU) and the Palestinian Authority which it greatly finances, as well as with those policies of the Arab countries, seem to be the result of a long-term process. With slight nuances, the anti-Israel discourse that is heard simultaneously on both shores of the Mediterranean shows identical characteristics. This twenty-first century Judeophobia is rooted in a transnational European structure, born of a historical context and the Euro-Arab policy of the last thirty years. The European populations however remain, grosso modo, unconcerned even if the media have for decades subjected them to an ideology that demonized Israel.

Thus, Europeans run considerable risks of becoming both the toy and the victims of religious hatred, as well as of political and economic interests masked by the Arab-Israel conflict that is intentionally blown out of all proportions in order to hide the global jihad that also targets them. For the ideological structure of this new Judeophobia is imported from the Arab-Muslim world, even if it is expressed in the framework of a European discourse by three sectors:  the political parties, the media, and the religious sector.

As will be seen below, the development of the Euro-Arab Dialogue brought considerable modifications in European societies. It has relayed Muslim Judeophobic anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism and its hatred of the West. It has facilitated the irrepressible Arab ambition to Islamize Europe, its history, and its culture – an ambition that some Islamist leaders, for example, are voicing in the very heart of London. Moreover, the strategy of the Dialogue urged the glorification of ‘Palestinity’, the vilification of Israel, the growing separation between Europe and America, and the flourishing of an imaginary version of Islamic religion, history and civilization in Western public opinion. It forced Europe to revise its interpretation of its own identity and history in order to harmonize them with the Islamic vision of Europe, and by this process, to undergo a self-inflicted Islamization.

The oil embargo:  The trigger

After World War II, France – humiliated by the Vichy collaborationist government and the loss of its colonial empire – saw any ambitious role it may have had as a great power sharply reduced. The Franco-German union provided Charles de Gaulle with the means to ensure peace in Europe by reconciling traditional enemies, while in the 1960s the alliance with the Arab world enabled France – at an international level – to challenge American power. De Gaulle’s economic and strategic policy aimed at uniting the countries around the Mediterranean in an inter-dependent industrial bloc opposed to America. To achieve this plan, France strove to build an alliance with the Arab states. Hostility toward America and Israel was not only fed by the communist and leftist trends, but also by the heritage of pro-Nazi collaborators from the French Vichy regime, which had survived in the post-war decades, and permeated the French administration up to the highest ranks.

After the 1967 Six-Days war, France became the instigator of a European anti-Israel policy. She did not readily forgive Israel for its lightning victory over a coalition comprising Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinians – and supported by the entire Arab world. At international forums France voted in favour of Arab anti-Israel resolutions and backed a unilateral boycott of arms sales to the Jewish state (1969). At the European level, French diplomacy supported Arab interests, setting out to bend European policy in a pro-Arab, anti-Israel direction. In this context, France examined the concept of a Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) with Libya. (1)

The joint Egyptian-Syrian war against Israel in 1973 and the Arab oil embargo, utilized as a weapon of world pressure, favored French schemes. Mortified by the Arab defeat after a successful beginning, the Arab oil-producing countries met in Kuwait (October 16-17 ), where they decided unilaterally to quadrupled the price of oil, to reduce gradually by 5% each month their production of crude oil until the withdrawal of Israel from the territories the Arab had lost in their war of 1967 and failed to recover in their 1973 war. They imposed an embargo on deliveries destined to the countries considered friendly to Israel: the United States, Denmark, and the Netherlands. The consuming countries were classified as friendly, neutral, or enemy countries.

Panicked, the nine countries of the European Economic Community (EEC) immediately met in Brussels on November 6,1973 and tabled a joint Resolution based on their dependence on Arab oil; this Resolution was totally in line with the Franco-Arab policy in respect of Israel. (2)

The EEC introduced three new points in the Brussels resolution: 1. The inadmissibility of acquiring territory by force, already theoretically stated in UN Security Council Resolution 242;  2. An Israeli withdrawal to the lines of the 1949 armistice;  3. Inclusion of ‘the legitimate rights of the Palestinians’ in the definition of peace.

The first proposal seemed admirable but absurd since all territories were acquired by force. What constituted the legitimacy of states? Ottoman Palestine had been conquered by force in 1917 by the British. In the 1948 war against Israel, Egypt took Gaza by force and Abdullah’s Arab Legion had occupied Judea and Samaria by force, as well as the Old City of Jerusalem and the Hebrew University on Mt. Scopus, expelling all their Palestinian Jewish inhabitants. Moreover, all the countries that today are called Arab were originally conquered by Arab jihad armies. Were all these land conquests, imposed by force and war, also unacceptable? What criteria would determine the irreversibility of a conquest and an injustice – the occupation of land or its liberation? Did their indigenous non-Muslim populations “occupy” Spain and Portugal, Sicily, Greece, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Romania and Armenia lands, or were they population of countries freed from dhimmitude? Is the State of Israel the legitimate expression of a free people, whose land had been Arabized and Islamized by one of the cruellest form of persecution against its indigenous Jewish population after the Roman-Byzantine occupation, or an injustice because it has suppressed this persecution and neutralised the evil power of the persecutors?

On the second point, Europe obligingly adopted the Arabs’ denial of their own defeat in 1967, a war that they themselves had triggered after the 1948 invasion to eradicate Israel. In this way, the EEC set the seal on the Arab-Islamic interpretation of Resolution 242, because in fact this Resolution in its original and authoritative English version only refers to withdrawal from territories, an intentional choice of words on the part of those who conceived it. Judea and Samaria were not, henceforth, described as territories open to negotiation but as ‘occupied Arab territories’ that Israel had to evacuate immediately. But these territories had also been conquered by force in the 1948 war unleashed by Arab states. The combined Syrian, Jordanian and local Arab forces that seized them had also expelled all their Jewish Palestinian inhabitants and had confiscated all their land, houses and property.

The third point of the Resolution introduced an innovation into the Middle East conflict that would prove dramatic for Europe in the future. Until 1970, the expression “Palestinian people” did not exist in this context. People talked only about the Arabs in Palestine who were no different from Arabs in the twenty countries of the Arab League, particularly from the Arabs in Transjordan, that is to say from 78 per cent of the League of Nations designated Palestine. Great Britain detached this vast area in 1922 and created an exclusively Arab country, the newly named Emirate of Transjordan.

UN Security Resolution 242 recommended a solution to the refugee problems, which also implied the more numerous Jewish refugees who had fled from Arab lands, abandoning all their possessions. The creation of a “Palestine people” ex nihilo after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, would lead Europe to create its legitimacy, its history and a right – equivalent and even superior to Israel’s – by resurrecting the theology of replacement, constantly nourished with propaganda demonizing Israel in order to justify its demise. This directed Europe along a path of active solidarity with the Arab policy of Israel’s elimination that involved the encouragement and legitimization of international terrorism embodied by the PLO.

The formation of an Euro-Arab Economic and Political bloc

The EEC’s anti-Israel decision met the Arab conditions to open a dialogue with Europe, and it was rewarded by an immediate increase in oil supplies. Born of the oil embargo, the Euro-Arab Dialogue was set up from the start as a trade-off: the EEC countries undertook to support anti-Israel Arab policy, while in exchange they would benefit from economic agreements with the Arab League countries.(3) The Arab side demanded a European political commitment against Israel, subordinating the economic aspect of the dialogue to the political context of the Arab war against Israel. The economic domain was thus integrated within Euro-Arab political solidarity against Israel.

President Georges Pompidou, and Chancellor Willy Brandt confirmed the wish for a Dialogue at their meeting on November 26-27, 1973. Less than a month later the French president called a summit on December 15, 1973 in Copenhagen to examine the Middle East crisis and lay down the bases for cooperation between the Arab League countries and the EEC countries. Four Arab foreign ministers, invited to monitor the project, suggested various schemes

On June 10, 1974 the foreign ministers of the nine countries of the EEC, meeting in Bonn within the framework of political cooperation, adopted a text that specified the areas and means of developing their cooperation and their relations with the Arab countries. The areas involved were agriculture, industry, sciences, culture, education, technology, financial cooperation, and the civil infrastructure, etc.

In the course of the meetings that followed, the foreign ministers of the Nine laid the foundations of this cooperation with the Arab countries, according to an institutionalized structure linked to the highest authorities of each of the EEC countries. This formula made it possible to harmonize and unify the policy of the European Communities in their exchanges and their cooperation with the Arab League countries.

On July 31, 1974 in Paris, the first official meeting at ministerial level took place between the Kuwaiti foreign minister, the secretary-general of the Arab League, the president of the commission of the European Communities and the current president of the Community in order to discuss the organization of the Dialogue. The Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was then founded by the nine countries of the European Community with a view to strengthening the political, cultural and economical co-operation between Europe and the Arab world. All the major trends in European politics were represented in its Executive Committee that since met regularly every six months

The Damascus Conference (September 14-17, 1974), organized by the inter-parliamentary Association of Euro-Arab Cooperation, brought together the members representing all the parliamentary parties of the EEC, except Denmark. The Arabs set out the political preconditions for agreements on economic cooperation with the western European countries. The economic area that interested the EEC was conditioned by the Arabs’ political demands concerning the Middle East in accordance with the principle of barter, a fundamental principle of the Dialogue. The Arabs demanded:

  1. The unconditional withdrawal of Israel to the 1949 armistice lines;
  2. The Arabization of the Old City of Jerusalem which had been seized by force in 1948 and from which all the Jews had been expelled;
  3. The association of the PLO and its leader Arafat in any negotiations. (4)
  4. Pressure to be brought to bear on the United States by the EEC in order to bring it nearer to Arab policy and detach it from Israel.

The political aspect as an indispensable condition of the Dialogue was confirmed at the 7th Summit of the Arab Conference a month later (Rabat, October 1974). There it was recalled that the Euro-Arab Dialogue had to develop within the context of the “Declaration” of the 6th Summit of the Arab Conference in Algiers transmitted to Europe on November 28, 1973, which established the Arab political requirements concerning Israel. (5) For the Arabs, the Dialogue had to continue until its objectives were achieved. The political and economic aspects of this Euro-Arab cooperation were considered by them as interdependent

A permanent secretariat of 350 members assigned to Euro-Arab cooperation was then created with its seat in Paris. The Euro-Arab Dialogue was structured into various committees charged with planning joint industrial, commercial, political, scientific, technical, cultural and social projects.

On June 10, 1975, a delegation from the European Economic Community (EEC) met with a delegation from twenty Arab countries and from the PLO based in Cairo. More than thirty countries were represented by a general committee at ambassadorial level and by numerous experts. The EEC and the secretariat of the Arab League were represented at the political level. The Jordanian spokesman of the Arab delegation, M. Nijmeddin Dajani, stressed the political aspect and implications of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The deal between the two parties was clearly defined:  economic agreements with Europe in exchange for European alignment with Arab policy on Israel.

A Joint Memorandum of the Mixed Committee of Experts gave a first formulation of the general principles and aims of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

In the course of the Luxembourg meeting a year later (May 18-20, 1976), the organization and procedure of the Euro-Arab Dialogue were defined and published in Appendix 4 of the final Communiqué. The Dialogue was composed of three organs:  1)  the General Committee;  2)  the Working Committees;  3)  the Political Committee.

The General Committee consisted of the delegates of both sides, comprising officials of ambassadorial status, members of the League of Arab States and of the European Communities, of the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and of the Commission of the European Communities, as well as the co-presidents and rapporteurs of the Working Committees. The heads of the Arab and European delegations held the presidency of the General Committee jointly. The Committee was the central body of the Dialogue, and was in charge of the general conduct of the Dialogue as well as monitoring its developments in the different areas. It was responsible for its establishment, and for directing it toward the assigned political, cultural, social, technological and economic goals, as well as approving the program of the Dialogue and of its tasks. The varied commitments of the Committee were specified. Its sittings took place behind closed doors and without recorded minutes. At the end of each meeting the General Committee could publish a summary of the decisions taken and a common press release. (6)

The composition of the Working Committees followed the same principle:  each group comprised experts and specialist technicians from the two sides, as well as representatives of the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and the Commission of the European Communities. Each of the two Arab and European groups appointed a president for each Working Committee. The Working Committees proceeded according to the instructions given by the General Committee concerning their mandates. Each Working Committee could create specialized sub-groups whose experts were chosen in conjunction with the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and the Commission of the European Communities.

The Coordinating Committee was composed of representatives of the General Committee and of the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and of the European presidency, with the two parties presiding jointly. The Committee was responsible for coordinating the work of the various working parties under the direction of the General Committee. All information and documentation was transmitted by the general secretariat of the League of Arab States and the Commission of European Communities.

This briefly summarized structure established a symbiosis, an inter-penetration of Arab and European policies, requiring the involvement of the European states at the highest level. It is clear that Europe’s hostile policy to Israel – standardized by the structures of the EEC – is not the result of mistaken judgements, of prejudices capable of being corrected. It rests on a politico-economic construction, meticulously prepared down to the smallest detail, and rooted in its multiform symbiosis with the Arab world.

In the years that followed, this collaboration was strengthened by meetings every six months and by various activities on an international scale: (Rome, July 24,1975; Abu Dhabi, November 27,1975; Luxembourg, May 18-20, 76; several meetings in Brussels in 1976; Tunis, February 10-12, 1977). The European members of the permanent secretariat of the Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation ( PAEAC) travelled frequently to the United States to attempt to influence America policy in favour of the PLO’s claims, and against Israel. The Arabs demanded that Europe recognise Yasser Arafat as the Palestinian leader and a Palestinian state, the implementation of an international boycott of Israel, and a strategy of worldwide political and economic pressure in order to force the Jewish state to withdraw to the 1949 armistices lines. The Working Committee studied suitable methods to condition European and world public opinion to persuade it to support the PLO, whose Charter required the elimination of the State of Israel. According to Saleh al-Mani:

Despite the failure of the EAD, to result in recognition of the PLO the latter was, nevertheless, one of the most active supporters of the EAD. The PLO may have wanted to use the EAD as a channel for airing its demands, and in this regard it may have been successful.

Although failing short of achieving formal recognition for the PLO the EAD did, however, succeed in persuading the Europeans of the need to established a “homeland for the Palestinians” and in “associating” the PLO with future negotiations on the Middle East. Thus the EAD has served certain limited Arab objectives. (7)

This comment by al-Mani confirms the direct connection between the PLO and the EEC’s economic transactions. In a speech on 26 August 1980, after describing the PLO’s terrorist war in Lebanon, Beshir Gemayel – Lebanon’s future President-elect – denounced its disastrous role in Europe:

This is a recapitulation of the doings of those people [PLO] on whose behalf the chancelleries of the civilized world are striving throughout the year, and for whose favours the old nations of Europe are competing.  (8)

It is clear that the PLO played a crucial role in the exchange of economic benefits that the Arab countries granted to Europe in return for political support in their war against Israel. EAD meetings concluded with declarations by the European delegation in line with those of Arab policy (London, June 9, 1977; Brussels, October 26-28, 1978): Israeli withdrawal to its 1949 borders, Israel’s obligation to recognise the national rights of the Palestinians; the invalidation of all measures and decisions taken by Israel in the territories outside of the 1949 lines, including Jerusalem. Judea and Samaria are described as ‘occupied Arab territories’.

The Israeli-Egyptian peace negotiations at Camp David (1977-78) under the wing of American president Carter, put a damper on the EAD, while the Arab League totally rejected them and expelled Egypt from its ranks. The Arab countries were furious with the success of American influence in the region to the detriment of the European diplomacy that they tried to control through economic cooperation. France abstained from recognising the peace agreements, whereas the other EEC countries accepted them, but – at French instigation – with reservations.

Meanwhile, the EAD resumed its activities and the 4th meeting of the General Committee in Damascus (December 9-11, 1978) approved the creation of a Euro-Arab center in Kuwait for the transfer of technology.

The Birth of Eurabia: a new political entity

Eurabia is the title of a review edited by the European Committee for Coordination of Friendship Association with the Arab World (Paris). It was published with the collaboration of Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris) and the Groupe d’Etudes sur le Moyen-Orient (Geneva).

In its second issue (July 1975), Eurabia published the resolutions passed unanimously at Strasbourg by the general assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation on June 7-8, 1975. Membership of this Association comprised more than 200 Members of Parliament from western European countries, representing all shades of the political spectrum. In other words, the consensus for the program of Euro-Arab entente covered the whole of the European political scene.

Eurabia specified in its editorial:  “the necessity for a political entente between Europe and the Arab world as a basis for economic agreements”, and the obligation on the part of the Europeans to “understand the political as well as the economic interests of the Arab world”. The Euro-Arab Dialogue had to express “a joint political will” [emphasis by the author]. This preliminary condition for any economic agreements with Arab League countries necessitated the creation in Europe “of a climate of opinion” favorable to the Arabs. The editorial stressed that this question had been examined by a large number of experts from the Association de Solidarité Franco-Arabe (Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity) and from the general assembly of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation in Strasbourg:

If they really want to cooperate with the Arab world, the European governments and political leaders have an obligation to protest against the denigration of Arabs in their media. They must reaffirm their confidence in the Euro-Arab friendship and their respect for millennial contribution of the Arabs to world civilization. This contribution and its practical application will be one of the themes of our next issue. (Editorial)

Arab political demands concerning the conditions of the Dialogue were not limited exclusively to Israel. They also concerned Europe. M. Tilj Declerq, Belgian member of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, submitted a study on the conditions of this cooperation to the economic commission of this Association. It was summarised in the second issue of Eurabia  (July 1975) and entitled, ‘A European point of view’.

Declerq emphasis that “Euro-Arab cooperation must result from a political will. “The political interests of this cooperation must therefore be recognized.” In other words, economic exchanges were subordinate to the EEC’s support of the Arabs League’s war to destroy Israel. As far as Europe was concerned, the Belgian speaker advocated economic cooperation associating Arab manpower reserves and raw materials – probably oil – with European technology.

A medium and long-term policy must henceforth be formulated in order to bring about economic cooperation through a combination of Arab manpower reserves and raw materials and European technology and “management”.

This clause could have been at the origin of the massive Arab immigration into Europe from 1975 onwards which seems to have been connected to the EEC’s economic agreements with the Arab world. According to Declerq, recycling petrodollars was to bring about the interdependence of Western Europe and the Arab countries in order “gradually to reach as complete as possible an economic integration”. But this Euro-Arab economic integration would remain theoretical if the political aspect – that is to say the battle against Israel – was not achieved. Therefore, “A genuine political will must be at the base of concrete plans for cooperation and must be demonstrated at three levels:  the national level;  the level of the continent; at world level.” From the same point of view, “Euro-Arab cooperation and solidarity had to be brought about through international organizations and international conferences.” Joint Euro-Arab preparatory meetings and symposiums had “to be multiplied at every level – economic, monetary, commercial, etc. – in order to reach common positions.”

Declerq’s proposals were all integrated into the resolutions of the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation when it met in Strasbourg (June 7-8, 1975), and were published in Eurabia. The political section of the resolutions targeted three areas: European policy on Israel; the creation of a climate of opinion favorable to the Arabs; the reception of Muslim immigrants into Europe.

Concerning Israel, the Association went along with Arab demands and called for Israel’s withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines, deliberately misinterpreting Resolution 242. In addition, the Association called on European governments to recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian Arabs, a fundamental point that they had to stress in the initiatives that a joint Euro-Arab policy required of them. The EEC had to force Israel to accept the rights of a Palestinian nation and the existence of a Palestinian state on the whole of the “West Bank” of the Jordan, and in Gaza.

Concerning Europe, the Association called for news coverage more favorable to Arab causes and special conditions for immigrants.

            The Association requires European governments to arrange legal provisions concerning the free movement of, and respect for, the fundamental rights of immigrant workers in Europe: these rights must be equivalent to those of national citizens.

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

In the same paragraph, the Association considers that “the harmonious development of cooperation between Western Europe and the Arab nation” would benefit from the free circulation of ideas and citizens. The economic resolution expressed a concern about the political choices that:

had been prejudicial to Euro-Arab cooperation, such as the creation of the International Energy Agency and the signature of an agreement between the EEC and Israel, before the negotiations between the EEC and the Arab countries had been completed. On this subject, it made a formal request that economic cooperation between the EEC and Israel should not apply to the occupied territories.

Eurabia: a new cultural entity

The cultural resolution contained several statements, including the following:

Recognizing the historical contribution of Arab culture to European development;

Stressing the contribution that the European countries can still expect from Arab culture, notably in the area of human values;

The Association called for the teaching of the Arabic language and culture to be expanded in Europe:

Desiring that European governments facilitate, for the Arab countries, the creation of generous means to enable immigrant workers and their families to participate in Arab cultural and religious life.

The Association appealed to the press, to friendship groups and for tourism to improve public opinion regarding the Arab world. It:

asks the governments of the Nine to approach the cultural sector of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in a constructive spirit and to accord the greatest priority to spreading Arab culture in Europe.

asks the Arab governments to recognize the political consequences of active cooperation with Europe in the cultural domain.

The Resolution ended with a condemnation and a criticism of Israel.

While recognizing the State of Israel’s right to exist, [it] condemns the Zionist wish to substitute Jewish culture for Arab culture on Palestinian territory, in order to deprive the Palestinian people of its national identity;

Considering that by carrying out excavations in the holy places of Islam – the occupied part of Jerusalem – Israel has committed a violation of international law, despite the warning of UNESCO;

Considering that the excavations could only result in the inevitable destruction of evidence of Arab culture and history;

Regrets that UNESCO’s decision not to admit Israel into its regional grouping should have been exploited, sometimes with a great lack of objectivity.

The Strasbourg meeting was followed a few days later (June 10-14, 1975) by a symposium of the Mixed Committee of Experts in Cairo for a first formulation of the general principles and objectives of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The introduction to the joint memorandum of this meeting specifies that:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the fruit of a common political desire which emerged at the highest level and which aims to establish special relationships between the two groups.

The two parties recalled that the Dialogue originated in their exchanges at the end of 1973, and, particularly, the declaration made by the nine States members of the European Community on November 6, 1973 concerning the situation on the Middle East well as the declaration addressed to the Western European countries by the 6th Summit conference of Arab counties in Algiers, on November 28, 1973.

The areas of cooperation listed in the memorandum include cooperation in nuclear technology, finance, banking and capital management, business, scientific research, technological development, technical and professional training, the utilization of nuclear power, the building of cities infrastructures, planning, industrialization, transportation, urbanization, health, education, telecommunication, tourism, etc. The training of specialist personnel for the numerous projects envisaged would take place “either by sending teams of European experts with a view to training the Arab workforce, or by training this workforce in establishments Centers in the EEC countries”. The intention was to set up “effective [cooperation] and exchange of information between Arab and European universities” in research procedures, various programs and projects.

The section on “Cooperation in the fields of culture and civilization” stressed that the principal objective of the Euro-Arab dialogue was to bring closer two civilizations that have contributed considerably in enriching the patrimony of humanity. They consider that their cooperation in the area of culture and civilization should englobe education, the arts, sciences and information; and they affirmed that the principal objective of such a cooperation was the consolidation and deepening of the bases of cultural understanding and of an intellectual rapprochement between the two regions

Various measures were envisaged, like the exchanges of experts, and the development of contacts in the fields of education and tourism. Lastly, the problems of the workforce of emigrant workers had to be settled by equality of treatment concerning: 1) employment situation; 2) working and living conditions; 3) social security systems. (9)

After almost three decades, one may ask: what was the impact on the European continent of this policy, which brought theoretically independent sectors – the economy, immigration, politics and culture – into one single block linked to the Arab world and its anti-Israeli/antisemitic paranoia?

The Spiral:  Arab instrumentalization of the European Community

In this correlation between the economic and the political sectors, the difference in viewpoints between the EEC’s perspectives and those of the Arab League are immediately apparent. The EEC is looking for economic gain, profit, through a strategy of expansion in the oil, commercial, and industrial markets. Its actions are characterized solely by a business-like pragmatism on the part of management technocrats who formulate programs of assistance and regional development, as well as massive sales of arms and industrial and nuclear equipment (e.g. the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq destroyed by Israel in 1981) in pursuit of profit.

The Arab faction, on the other hand, exploited the economy as a radical means to make the EEC an instrument in a long-term political strategy targeting Israel, Europe and America. The Arab political grip on the EEC’s economy would rapidly impose on it the Arab political directives vis-à-vis Israel. One of the Arab delegates, Dr Ibrahim A. Obaid, Director-General, Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources from Riyad (Saudi Arabia), aptly expressed the spirit of the Dialogue, when the experts of Euro-Arab Cooperation met in Amsterdam in 1975:

Together and as equals, the Europeans and the Arabs can through a “strategy of inter-dependence” forge ahead to remove the thorn from their sides – the Israeli problem – and attend to the Herculean task ahead of them. (10)

The economic agreements between the EEC and the Arab world went beyond the sphere of trade treaties and led to Europe’s progressive subjection to Arab political objectives. The EAD became – particularly for France – an associative diplomacy in the international forums, where the EEC fell into line with Arab anti-Zionist positions. A vehicle for legitimizing the PLO and for its propaganda, the EAD procured for it international, diplomatic recognition and conferred respectability and international standing on Arafat and for his international terrorist movement. It was within the framework of the EAD that the whole war policy of delegitimazion against Israel was constructed at the national and international levels of the EEC, in the trade unions, the media, and the universities. The EAD was the mouthpiece that spread and popularized throughout Europe the demonization and defamation of Israel. France, Belgium and Luxemburg were the EAD’s most active agents.

In Europe, Arab strategy was mainly directed toward three goals:

attaining economic and industrial parity with the West by the transfer to Arab countries of modern technology, particularly nuclear and military technology;

implanting on European soil of a large Muslim population, which would enjoy all the political, cultural, social and religious rights of the host country;

imposing the political, cultural and religious influence of Arab-Islamism on European space through an immigration which remained politically and culturally attached to its countries of origin.

The EAD also served the Arab League as a channel to apply pressures on America via Europe to persuade it to align itself with Arab policy on Israel. At the geo-strategic level, Euro-Arab cooperation was a political instrument of anti-Americanism in Europe, aiming to separate and weaken the two continents by instigating mutual hostility between them and by constant denigration of American policy in the Middle East.

The fact that the import of Islamic manpower into Europe was synchronized with the expansion of European markets in Arab countries made it possible for several million Muslim immigrants to arrive without hindrance. The speed and scale of this operation was unique in history. Even in the course of the European colonization, the emigration of Europeans to the colonies took place at an infinitely slower pace. The number of European colonists, including their descendants, even after a maximum of one or two centuries, was incomparably lower than that of present-day Muslim immigrants in each of the countries of Europe after only three decades.

The political laxity of the European governments was worsened by the permission granted to Arab countries to export their culture and their mores together with their population (EAD Declaration, Damascus, September 11, 1978).

University of Venice Seminar:  1977

The Arab cultural implantation into Europe, was bound-up with the immigration – that is to say the transfer of millions of Muslims from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, together with their original culture – into the host countries. This cultural Arabization/Islamization had already been planned at the University of Venice (March 28-30, 1977) by the Euro-Arab Seminar on Means and Forms of Cooperation for the Diffusion in Europe of the Knowledge of Arabic Language and Literary Civilization.

The Seminar was organised by the Instituto per l’Oriente in Rome and the Arabic literature section of the Foreign Languages faculty of the University of Venice. The participants came from 14 universities in Arab countries, 19 Arabists from European universities, numerous other personalities connected with the Muslim world, as well as the representative of the Pontifical Institute of Arab Studies in Rome (Pontificio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica). The seminar was integrated into the Euro-Arab Dialogue, meaning it had the approval of the President of the EEC, the secretary of the Arab League and the foreign ministers of every country represented in the European Community. The Arab participants represented Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, Sudan and Tunisia. (11)

Among the subjects broached during the four working sessions, the European rapporteurs presented their reports on the diffusion and knowledge of Arabic and of Arab civilization in their respective countries. The Arab delegates, for their part, described the simplified methods of teaching Arabic to non-Arabs practised in their countries. The seminar ended with the adoption of a number of Recommendations. They cannot all be listed here, but the general tenor advocated creating in European capitals centers for the diffusion of the Arab language and culture in every European country in coordination with the Arab countries. This project envisaged appointing to European institutes and universities Arab professors, who were specialists in teaching Europeans.

The participants in this Seminar unanimously forward the following recommendations for consideration by the governments of the member states of the European Community and the League of Arab States

  1. 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.
  2. Creation of joint Euro-Arab Cultural Centres in European capitals which will undertake the diffusion of the Arabic language and culture.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Necessity of supplying European institutions and universities with Arab teachers specialized in teaching Arabic to Europeans.
  6. In teaching Arabic, emphasis must be laid on different linguistic skills: the teaching of Arabic must be linked with Arab-Islamic culture and contemporary Arab issues.
  7. 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. (12)

The following resolutions define the forms of cooperation between Arab and European universities and their respective experts as well as the organization of the funds necessary for this Arabization project in the EEC. The last recommendation considers it necessary to establish a permanent committee of Arab and European experts charged with controlling the pursuance and application of the decisions concerning the diffusion of Arabic and of Arab culture in Europe within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue.

  1. In order to achieve the above, the participants consider it necessary as a result of this seminar to establish a permanent committee of Arab and European experts to follow up on the recommendations for disseminating Arabic and Arab culture in Europe; this be within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue

This framework signified the approval of the foreign ministers of the EC countries and its presidency, in collaboration with the secretary of the League of Arab countries, as well as the other diplomats represented on the General Commission whose work proceeded in camera and went unrecorded.

The Cultural requests from the Arab bloc

Thus, from the 1970s the immigration policy integrated into the economico-political conception of the EAD (1973) did not envisage scattered immigration by individuals wanting to integrate into the host country. It planned a homogeneous implant of foreign collectivities numbering in the millions, into the European Communities. It facilitated the creation of groups who were hostile to their secular European environment, coming not to integrate but with the intention and with the right to impose their own civilization on the host country, while rejecting its secular institutions, considered inferior to those of the shari’a given by Allah. Whereas the EAD claimed for the Arab immigrants the rights conferred by the European legal institutions, the latter despised these institutions since they availed themselves of their own Arab-Islamic culture based on the shari’a. Thus, right from the start of the immigration, integration was excluded.

The Hamburg Symposium (April 11-15, 1983) of the Euro-Arab Dialogue was inaugurated with great pomp by the opening address of Hans-Dietrich Genscher, minister for foreign affairs of the German Federal Republic, followed by a speech from the secretary-general of the Arab League, Chedli Klibi. Genscher strongly recalled Europe’s debt to Islamic civilization and emphasized the importance of the Dialogue in cementing Euro-Arab solidarity. He referred to the beginning of the Dialogue in 1973 and the importance of the political aspect which should not be ignored – in other words, the EEC’s anti-Israel policy in the Middle East as a foundation of the whole economic edifice of Euro-Arab cooperation. He stated:

The Euro-Arab Dialogue would indeed remain incomplete if the political side were to be ignored or not taken seriously.

Both parties to the Dialogue, both partners, should always remind themselves of the joint Memorandum issued in Cairo in 1975, the Charter of the Dialogue. The Memorandum contains the following quote: “The Euro-Arab Dialogue is the outcome of the common political will which strives for the creation of a special relationship between the two groups.” We Europeans spoke out in a clear and convinced manner for a revival of the Euro-Arab Dialogue in the Venice Declaration of June 13 1980. Since then, the various working groups within the Dialogue have become more active and the prospects for the future are now promising. (13)

After two years during which the Dialogue was interrupted following the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty of 1979, the Venice Declaration totally aligned itself with the Arab political demands relating to Israel. It confirmed the national rights of the Palestinians “which is not simply one of refugees” (art. 6). Article 7 required the participation of PLO in the negotiations. In article 8 “the Nine stress that they will not accept any unilateral initiative designed to change the status of Jerusalem”. In the following article:

The Nine stress the need for Israel to put an end to the territorial occupation which it has maintened since the conflict of 1967, as it has done for part of Sinai. They are deeply convinced that the Israeli settlements constitute a serious obstacle to the peace process in the Middle East. The Nine consider that these settlements, as well as modifications in population and property in the occupied Arab territories, are illegal under international law.

At the Hamburg Symposium in 1983, speakers from both sides presented various reports bearing on the integration of the two civilizations. Participants were divided into three workshops. The first, ‘Prospect for Cultural Exchange’ examined the prospects for future cultural exchanges in all areas. The discussion covered : “exchange agreements between universities, exchanges between students and teachers and others, in the field of creative arts, of audio-visual materials, co-operation in translation, in transmitting Arabic publications to Europe, exhibitions and publication”. The areas of this cultural cooperation were to be defined: “by a general cultural agreement between the Arab League and the European Community. This agreement would provide a framework for more specialized agreements to operate”. A small joint committee within the framework of the Euro-Arab Dialogue would be “set up to monitor the working of the agreement, to examine and accept proposals for future projects and to ensure their execution”

The workshop suggested various schemes which were summarized as follows:

  1. The publication twice yearly of a Euro-Arab journal devoted to specific topics with Arab and European contributors […] In addition a smaller newsletter is recommended which would list cultural developments in the Arab world, noting such things as intellectual debates, theatrical performances, important publications.
  2. To invite Arab professional Unions and their members to conclude agreements with their European counterparts to further cultural co-operation and exchange. The Arab side specifically made the proposal to conclude such an agreement with the Unions of Arab Writers and of Publishers […] Such agreements should also include the encouragement of periodical meeting between European and Arab Unions of Radio and Television and between Associations of Film Producers and Actors to promote joint productions.
  3. The convening of small, specialized or professional seminars on selected themes. Among topics already suggested are the religious dialogue, Arab historiography, book publishing and librarianship, investigation of the content of text books at all levels in the history of the two regions.

The second workshop focused on the: ‘Social and Cultural Consequences of the Migration of Workers and Intellectuals’. The participants noted that, as Arab immigration turned into permanent residence, carrying out the Damascus Declaration (December 1978), was henceforth inadequate for the situation in 1983. It was particularly necessary to supplement the article stipulating the rights of Arab migrants and the members of their families to: “enjoy equality of treatment as to living and working conditions, wages and economic rights, rights of association and the exercise of basic public freedoms”. It was felt that not enough was done to implement the tenets of this declaration. (art.3) The participants recommended the creation of a permanent institution to improve knowledge of migration and to formulate policies and programs “with the purpose of ensuring the highest level of welfare for the migrants themselves and maximum benefit for both countries of origin and employment with a spirit of genuine cooperation among the countries involved in the Dialogue.” (art. 4)

Article 5 contained several proposals:

 It is recommended that the social integration of migrant workers and their families in the host countries be facilitated by:

  1. a) giving equal rights in access to the housing market, the labour market and the educational system and to vocational and professional training,
  2. b) making the general public more aware of the cultural background of migrants, e.g. by promoting cultural activities of the immigrant communities,
  3. c) supplying adequate information on the culture of the migrant communities in the school curricula,
  4. d) creating special schooling and training facilities for those who have functional relationships with the immigrants (e.g. civil servants, medical staff, members of the police force, teachers, social workers etc.),
  5. e) giving migrants access to the mass media in order to ensure that migrants be in a position to receive regular information in their own language about their own culture as well as about the conditions of life in the host country,
  6. f) broadening cooperation between immigrant groups and the national population and taking measures to increase the participation of immigrant groups in trade union activities and explore their participation in political life.
  7. It is recommended that the Arab countries of origin strengthen their cultural support to Arab migrants in Europe.

The third workshop examined cooperation in the field of Arabic and European language teaching. This group stressed that this question was of the greatest importance because it formed a basic principle of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The decisions of the Venice Seminar (1977) were supplemented by those of the Hamburg Seminar (1983). They repeated the necessity for Arab language and culture to be diffused in Europe by the Arab countries and their specific institutions as well as by Euro-Arab cultural centers created in European capitals. It was necessary to teach Arabic to the immigrant children, and to ensure the publication and distribution of Arabic newspapers and books, intended for a cultured European public in order to give an objective and attractive picture of Islamic civilization. A program for carrying out all the activities examined was planned over a five-year period.

Reading the proceedings of the numerous symposia, one is struck by the difference in the speeches of the two parties. The Europeans employ cautious language, admiring and flattering Islam. Excessive tribute is paid to the great Islamic civilization from which the civilization of Europe has drawn inspiration. (e.g. Hans-Dietrich Genscher, German Foreign Minister, Hamburg Symposium, 1983). Platitudinous, humble excuses are formulated for colonization and Europe’s anti-Arab prejudices. The Arab faction, on the contrary, adopts the tone of a schoolmaster wielding the stick, confident of the tolerance, humanism and greatness of his civilization, the spiritual and scientific fountainhead of Europe. Reproaches are not absent, particularly concerning the inadequacy of European measures against Israel, a central and essential point on which the whole infrastructure of the Dialogue is built. The Arab speeches hammer out in venomous terms Europe’s obligation to deal severely with Israel (Zionist usurpation, the hand of Zionism seeking to kill the Arabs in every country, policy of institutionalized racism. Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with Racism had been hammered through the UN General Assembly in 1975). They remind them of the duty to recognize and teach the greatness and superiority of Islamic civilization and Islam at university level. Preachers describe the Islamic origin of Judaism, Christianity and all mankind, born as Muslims in its original purity.

The Alignment of the EEC

The EEC had fully aligned itself with the directives concerning Israel formulated by the Arab League as early as 1970, as can be seen in the Declaration of the Nine on the Middle East (London, 29 June 1977). Some of these declarations repeat word for word those issued by the 2nd Islamic Conference of Lahore (1974) and are not to be found in the original English UN Security Council Resolution 242.Thus, article 2 of the Declaration by the Council of Europe (London, 29 June 1977) specifies 1) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of land by force, 2) the necessity for Israel to end the territorial occupation it has maintained since the 1967 conflict, while resolution 242 mentions withdrawal “from territories”; 3) the obligation for Israel – in the establishment of a just and lasting peace – to take account of the “legitimate rights” of the Palestinians, which is not to be found in the valid UNSC Resolution 242.

Article 3 gives the Arab position:

The Nine are convinced that a solution of the Middle East conflict will only be possible if the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to give effective expression to its national identity is translated into a reality which will take account of the need of a homeland for the Palestinian people. They consider that the representatives of the parties to the conflict, including the Palestinian people, must participate in the negotiations in an appropriate manner, to be defined in consultation among all the interested parties. In the framework of an overall settlement, Israel must be prepared to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. Likewise the Arab party must be prepared to recognise Israel’s right to live in peace within secure and recognised frontiers. (14)

This declaration had been prepared by the General Commission of the EAD meeting in Tunis (February 10-12, 1977). Concerning Jerusalem, the final communiqué published at the end of its second session stated: “the European side … has also marked its opposition to any initiative tending to alter the status of Jerusalem unilaterally. The Arab side said how much it appreciated this attitude.”

On September 26, 1977, Henri Simonet, Belgian Foreign Minister and president of the council of the EEC stated at the UN General Assembly in New York that the Middle East conflict had to be based on security resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), that is to say on the Franco-Arab interpretation of them, in the French version, as adopted by the EEC after the Arab oil embargo in 1973, as well as on the following fundamental principles: first, acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable; secondly, Israel must end its occupation of territories it has held since the 1967 war; thirdly, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and the independence of each State in the region must be respected, as well of [sic] the right of each State of the region to live in peace within secure and recognized borders; fourthly, the establishment of a just and lasting peace must take account of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

  1. The nine countries also continue to believe that a solution to the conflict will not be possible unless the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to give effective expression to its national identity becomes a reality. This would take into account, of course, the need for a homeland for the Palestinian people.
  2. It remains the firm view of the nine countries that all of these elements constitute an indivisible whole.
  3. One should recall here that the nine countries have publicly stated their concern over the illegal measures taken recently by the Government of Israel in the occupied territories …
  4. Looking forward to peace negotiations, the nine countries reaffirm the concern they have expressed on many occasion that the parties of the conflict should refrain from making any statements or adopting any measures, administrative, legal, military or otherwise, which would constitute an obstacle to the process of peace. (15)

The second Islamic Conference, organized by the recently created Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was held in Lahore on February 24, 1974 and its Declaration clearly manifested their policy toward Israel:

  1. The Arab cause is the cause of all countries which oppose aggression and will not suffer the use of force to be rewarded by territory or any other gains;
  2. Full and effective support should be given to the Arab countries to recover, by all means available, all their occupied lands;
  3. The restitution of the full national rights of the Palestinian peoples [sic] in their homeland is the essential and fundamental condition for a solution to the Middle East problem and the establishment of lasting peace on the basis of justice;
  4. The constructive efforts undertaken by the Christian Churches, all over the world and in the Arab countries, notably in Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Syria to explain the Palestinian question to the international public opinion and to the world religious conferences and to solicit their support for Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and other holy places in Palestine should be appreciated;
  5. Any measure taken by Israel to change the character of the occupied Arab territories and in particular of the Holy City of Jerusalem is a flagrant violation of international law and is repugnant to the feelings of the Member-States of the Islamic Conference and of the Islamic world in general. (16)

The Culture of Eurabia

Whereas the EU offers Israel nothing but verbiage which can only be meaningless for the civilizations of the jihad (“just and lasting peace”, “secure and recognized frontiers”), it demands concrete actions from Israel: 1) cession of territories; 2) redivision of Jerusalem; 3) the creation of a second Palestine, another Arab-Muslim state on the historical Jewish homeland Islamized by jihad; 4) the obligation on Israel to negotiate with Arafat, (Venice Declaration, 1980), acknowledged as a terrorist leader up to the time of the Oslo accords (1994) and converted back to the jihad during the process which followed; 5) peace conditioned by a global settlement including with Syria; 6) Israel’s obligation to admit its responsibility and solve the problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine, although this tragedy was provoked by their alliance with five Arab armies, invading with the aim of destroying the fledgling State of Israel, and their subsequent defeats.

The EU complied with the demands of the Arab League and recognized Arafat as its sole representative. It thus conferred respectability and legitimacy on the godfather of international terrorism, the unrelenting enemy of the State of Israel, of the Lebanese Christians, and one of the modern symbols of jihad against the infidels.

The EU demanded that Israel return to the frontiers of the 1949 armistice, pretending to believe that such frontiers were viable. Its refusal to recognize Israel’s right to its ancient capital, Jerusalem, implies a delegitimization and denial of the history of the Jewish people to which Europe by virtue of its Christian origins is still a witness par excellence. The EU adopted the pathological Arab obsession that conferred an evil centrality on Israel, eclipsing all others world events. On the level of Euro-Arab international policy, it explained, justified and morally legitimized a pathology of Arab hate, which imposed the destruction of Israel as an absolute and universal priority. By enlisting in the Arab-Islamic jihad against Israel, under labels such as “peace and justice for the Palestinians”, Europe was rejecting all its values and even the foundation of its civilization. Thus, it abandoned the Christians in Lebanon to the massacres of the Palestinians, and the Christians of the Islamic world to the persecutions under dhimmitude. The liberation of Israel, a minuscule portion of the lands colonized by the Arabs in Asia, Africa and Europe by war and force, provoked a paranoia that masked the sufferings of millions of victims of modern jihad.

At the level of European demography, the EEC’s immigration policy encouraged the Islamist desire to Islamize Europe, and provides it with very solid bases. The real figures of this immigration were concealed from the public as if this constituted a state secret. The export of the immigrants’ culture to the host countries, an exorbitant and unique favor in the history of immigration, was integrated in the agreements between the EEC and the Arab League as an inalienable right of the immigrants. It created an obstacle to their integration, all the more so as the bonds with the countries of emigration were encouraged and supported to the utmost by cultural, political and economic agreements, and by collaboration and exchanges at the university and international level. The EAD’s European agents utilized anti-racism to eliminate any discussion of the insecurity, criminality and religious fanaticism of certain sections of a population, who generally refused to integrate.

EAD ’s cultural infrastructure made it possible to import into Europe the traditional cultural baggage of anti-Christian and anti-Jewish prejudices against the West and Israel, conceived by the peoples and the civilization of jihad. It was in these years that the theme of jihad was resurrected in order to nurture terrorist activism. Immigrant groups became the vehicles to diffuse it in Europe, with the silent collusion of academics, politicians and the whole of the EAD’s cultural apparatus. The discrediting of ‘infidel’ Judeo-Christian culture was expressed by the affirmation of the superiority of Islamic civilization from which, so they said, European sages had humbly drawn inspiration. Neither the centers of knowledge scattered over Latin and Byzantine Europe during the Middle Ages, nor in the following centuries the creation of printing, essential for the diffusion of knowledge, nor the scientific discoveries of Europe and their technological applications, nor the innovating evolution of its legal and political institutions, nor its artistic and cultural wealth can undermine the axiom of its inferiority to the Arabs, creators of science and the arts. This absurdity, obsequiously repeated by European ministers, actually constitutes a religious principle of the Arab world which acknowledges no superiority on the part of the infidel civilizations. The very term ‘Judeo-Christian’ civilization is rejected by fundamentalist Muslims (17) who only admire one single civilization, the Islamic civilization, which embraces, through Abraham – a Muslim prophet – Jews and Christians. That is why so many ministers no longer talk about Judeo-Christian civilization but about Abrahamic civilization. Moreover, Judaism and Israel polarize such hatred that Europe gladly rallied to Abrahamism, that is the Muslim conception of the Islamic origin of Judaism and Christianity, this latter not being connected with Judaism but with Islam, the first religion of mankind and antedating the other two monotheistic religions in the Islamic viewpoint.

The wave of Arab cultural and religious fanaticism which swept Europe was integrated into the functionality of the EAD. The EU thus repudiated its Jewish roots and rejected Christianity because it was born of them. The ablation of the historical memory of Europe in order to graft on to it the Arab-Islamic concept of history today makes possible the diffusion of a sort of negationist and guilt-inducing pseudo-culture, in which veneration for the Andalusian myth replaces knowledge of the devastating Muslim invasions. The obsequiousness of university circles, subject to a political power entirely dominated by economic materialism, recalls the worst periods of the decline of intelligence. The censorship of thought, the suppression of intellectual freedom, imported from Muslim countries in the package of a culture of hatred of Israel, today leads to the exclusion and boycott of Israeli academics by their colleagues in Europe.

Arab antisemitism/anti-Zionism was re-implanted in Europe in the conceptual framework set up by the Euro-Arab Dialogue and its planning of ‘a movement of opinion’ to support Arab anti-Israeli policy. Arab directives, backed by the Euro-Arab Parliamentary Association – the powerful Arab/Muslim lobby – were transmitted to the highest political, university and religious authorities engaged in the EAD, and were given practical application in the media, television, radio, the press, the universities, the workers’ unions and a variety of political and cultural activities. The major themes of this Eurabian antisemite culture were borrowed from the Arab world where they had already been diffused since the 1950s. Their main arguments are: 1) Holocaust denial; 2) Jews exploited the Shoah as a means to blackmail Europe for Israel’s benefit; 3) De-legitimization of the Jewish state; 4) The transfer of Israel’s history to the Palestinian Arabs; 5) The cult of the destruction of Israel as a source of the redemption of the world; 6) Cultural boycott of Israel and its isolation on the international scene – a policy which recreated the status of the Jew in Christianity, and of the dhimmi in Islam; 7) Culpabilisation of Europe for the resurgence of Israel; 8) Israel is a threat to world peace, which correctly interpreted means that Israel resists the Euro-Arab policy to eliminate it; 9) Anti-Americanism.

The all-encompassing Euro-Arab symbiosis produced by the EAD led the EU to tolerate the Palestinian terrorists on its own territory in the 1970s, and even later to justify and passively legitimize their terror against Israel, and later to actually finance the Palestine terrorist infrastructure and the inculcation of hatred in its schools. The churches and their media network were the most active agents of the moralization of Palestinian terrorism. Internal opposition was swept away by the political pressures and the funds of the religious organs involved in the EAD.

It was during 2000-2002 that Eurabia has perhaps erased Europe. In Eurabia the Islamic conception of history has supplanted the memory of the institution of the jihad and of dhimmitude which governed the relationship of the Muslims with non-Muslims from the seventh century to the present day. The culture of Eurabia today displays a combination of anti-Jewish, anti-Christian and anti-American animosity. The politicians and intellectuals who have brought it into the world with forceps have denied the wave of defamation and attacks against the Jews in Europe, a wave which they themselves have made possible and have irresponsibly stirred up for thirty years. They neglect the reality of antisemitism in the same way as they have neglected the attacks on the fundamental rights of European citizens, allowing ideological currents generating delinquency and terrorism to be established with impunity in their countries. The silence and negligence of the French authorities in the face of the wave of antisemitic aggression in the period 2000-2002 is only the tip of the iceberg of a global policy. Throughout the territory of Eurabia covered by the EAD agreements, the same uniformity of thought is to be found – the same taboos and censorship at universities and in the apparatus of information, the same historical and political counter-truths built into a dogma, the same tactics of obstructing publishers and bookshops, the same demonology of the Jews and Israel, the same attribution of guilt to Jews and Christians in regard to the Arab-Islamic world. When future generations will reflect in astonishment on the genesis of Eurabia, they will find that this mutation of European socio-political culture was driven by economic self-interest, financial greed, Judeophobic anti-Zionism, and anti-Americanism. The EAD, which bound the European economy to an Arab political strategy, planning the destruction of Israel, was the Trojan horse of that European drift toward the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence. The sorcerer’s apprentices have opened the way to a disquieting future.

NOTES

  1. Saleh A. Al-Mani, The Euro-Arab Dialogue. A Study in Associative Diplomacy, ed. Salah Al-Shaikhly, Frances Pinter (Publishers), London, 1983, p.48. See also Jacques Bourrinet (ed.), Le Dialogue Euro-Arabe, Economica, Paris 1979.
  2. Documents d’Actualité Internationale , Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Paris (henceforth DAI), 1974, n°l, pp.2-3.
  3. See Al-Mani, pp 70-73; 111; Bourrinet, p. 4. Analysing the formula of the EAD, John Waterbury writes: “The eventual bargaining took place in the form of a trade-off: the Arab political demands against European economic objectives”, ibid., p.25; Françoise de la Serre, ‘Conflit du Proche-Orient et Dialogue Euro-Arabe: La Position de l’Europe des Neuf’, in ibid.
  4. Report on Islamic Summit 1974, Pakistan. Lahore, February 22-24, 1974, p. 228.
  5. DAI 1974, Conférence des Chefs d’Etat Arabes (Alger, 26-29 novembre 1973) Déclaration de politique Générale (Alger, 28 Novembre 1973) (Source: Conférence des Chefs d’Etat arabes, in French, n°7, pp.122-26).
  6. As this issue of DAI has disappeared from the collection at the Bibliothèque du Palais des Nations at Geneva, this reference is taken from Bourrinet, pp.331-35: DAI 1977, n° 16-17, pp. 315-19.
  7. Al-Mani, pp.70-73.
  8. Bat Ye’or, Islam and Dhimmitude. Where Civilizations Collide, Cranbury, NJ, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press 2002, p. 253.
  9. Bourrinet, pp. 296-301.
  10. Edmond Völker, ed., Euro-Arab Cooperation. Europa Instituut, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, A.W. Sijthoff, Leyden, 1976, p. 179.
  11. Euro-Arab Dialogue. The Relations between the two cultures. Acts of the Hamburg symposium April 11th to l5th 1983. English version ed. by Derek Hopwood, Croom Helm, London, 1983; see the recommendations of the Venice Seminar, pp. 317-23.
  12. Ibid., pp. 320-21.
  13. Ibid., p.19.
  14. DAI, September 2, 1977, n° 35, Council of Europe (London, 29-30 June 1977) n°137. Déclaration des Neuf sur le Moyen-Orient (Londres 29 Juin 1977) (Source: Ministère des Affaires étrangères, Paris) Textes officiels pp 666-67, translated by the author.
  15. Official Records of the General Assembly.Thirty-second Session. Plenary Meetings, vol.1, Sept.20 – Oct.13, 1977, United Nations, New York,1978.
  16. Report on Islamic Summit 1974, Pakistan. Lahore, February 22-24, 1974, Karachi, pp.222-23.
  17. The rejection of the term ‘Judeo-Christianity’ has often been expressed orally; Bruno Etienne mentions this rejection, in La France et l’islam, Paris, 1989, Hachette, p.l89.
Advertenties

Geef een reactie

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

WordPress.com logo

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Twitter-afbeelding

Je reageert onder je Twitter account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Facebook foto

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Google+ photo

Je reageert onder je Google+ account. Log uit / Bijwerken )

Verbinden met %s