“Who conspired?” is the real title of Bat Ye’Or’s new essay as it appears on the web site Druez.info. However, in snipping part of it to share with you, the lead sentence stood out as more accurate title for the first part of her essay; thus the substitution.
An even more telling label could have been, say, “Libeled by the Leftist Press Once Again”. The later section of her essay shows clearly that her choice of “Eurabia” as the name of her book was not a case of so-called Islamophobia or a conspiracy. As she clearly demonstrates, this was the name of a journal from the 1970s — a journal on Arab/European cooperation. But more on that subject further down…
Dr. Andrew Bostom gave us the heads-up on existence of Bat Ye’Or’s essay in English, for which we are most grateful. Her analysis of what is transpiring in Norway is insightful and chilling.
I have copied much of her text, but the images for the journal remain at the original site since we didn’t obtain permission to copy them.
In her own words [but with my emphases, especially at those points where she discusses issues we’ve not seen addressed elsewhere — D],here is an excerpt of “Who Conspires?”:
A bad wind blows from Norway onto the world.
It is not only the monstrous massacre by the deranged Breivik perpetrated for several hours without the police intervention. Now is added the political violence of a desperate government before the past elections— that it would probably have lost— if the horror caused by the killing spree of a psychopath, had not given it victory.
Exploiting politically this crime, the government launched its bloodhounds, its anathemas, its fatwas and edicts against all writers on the planet who, painfully defying terrorism, professional ruin and social ostracism imposed by the single thought, struggle to maintain democratic freedoms and human dignity in Western societies. The crime of Breivik strengthened the government party and took hostage the right to think, speak and criticize political power. It imprisoned Westerners in the jail of totalitarianism and intellectual tyranny by criminalizing critical thinking.
Did Breivik— unknown to the writers he cited but not the Norwegian police—read my books? Was he inspired by great names throughout the centuries of scholars, and writers he quotes or rather by the jihadists and terrorists he admires? Was he not guided by the exterminationist jihadist terrorism excused by his government? Let us remember Ma’alot and its Israeli schoolchildren massacred by the Palestinians, Beslan, Mumbai … New York (September 2001), Madrid (March 2004), London (July 2005) … the civil wars in Lebanon, the countless victims in Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria …
Yet Norway — with a nominally democratic government — ignores the clear evidence of Hamas’ evil and continues to offer support, continues to indoctrinate its children against Israel. Whatever its flaws, Israel is a genuine democracy, the sole democracy in that region. Hamas is still a terror organization.
Am I the creator of a diabolical theory because I re-humanized in the concept of dhimmitude, the millions of victims of jihadist imperialism throughout the ages? Did I conceive a conspiracy because I studied its current extensions in modern Europe, as stated by a witch hunt organized by ignorant hacks who only rely on the defamation of a work they have not even read? Is it more moral to ignore these victims and side with their executioner, groveling to their ideology?
Those are rhetorical questions, of course but I’ll answer the last one: it’s not more moral, but ignoring the victims and siding with fellow totalitarians provides Norway’s elite an opportunity to demonstrate their solidarity.
At this point, Bar Ye’Or pulls out her information regarding the origin of the name Eurabia. As it turns out this wasn’t a product of her fevered Islamophobic fears after all:
So who invented Eurabia? Judge it yourself!
Here are two front sides of a journal called Eurabia. Look carefully at the dates: July and September 1975 for the numbers 2 and 3.
If you click on the site, Druez.info, scroll down to see the images of a magazine from 1975 with a most interesting name.
I didn’t copy them since I don’t have permission. But the dates are telling indeed. So Bat Ye’Or was demonized for ‘inventing’ Eurabia, even though the name had been previously used by a journal in print format back in the 1970s?
She shows the credits on the back of the journals:
Edited by the European Committee of Coordination of the Associations for the Friendship with the Arab World and produced with the collaboration of: Middle East International (London), France-Pays Arabes (Paris), and the Group of Studies on the Middle-East (Geneva).
And here she lays out the history of the main players back then: [again, all the emphases are mine- D]:
These groups and people were very well known in the 1960-70s and later. We learn who was Robert Swann from an article by Richard Eyre, written on September 2, 2009, published by The Council of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU), taken from the obituary in the Guardian (August 23, 2001).
According to the article, Robert Swann was secretary general of Amnesty International. The only son of German parents, he converted to Catholicism, and after a short stint at the Foreign Office he founded, in 1974, with the Labour MP Christopher Mayhew and French Raymond Offroy, a member of the National Assembly, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation (PAEAC). Posted in Paris, he became its first secretary general, a function to which was added the directorship of the Arab-Non Arab Friendship Fund (ANAF) located in Switzerland to finance the activities of this organization. Swann is credited with having convinced the European parliaments to adopt a unified position favorable to the Palestinians and the Arab world.
[Thus]The origin of the word Eurabia which earned me the wrath, the jeers and threats of self-righteousness Eurabians, then comes from the founders of PAEAC.
My book entitled “Eurabia” has a perfectly justified title because it examines the activities of the organization that itself created the name and politics associated with this word. My research examines books, official and unofficial documents and statements of the European Community, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, today Organization of the Islamic Cooperation. It is the PAEAC that, with the support of the European Commission, was responsible for conducting the unofficial policy of the Member States of the European Community with the Arab League countries under the umbrella of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, the formula credited to Michel Jobert, born in Meknes ( Morocco) and French Minister of Foreign Affairs (1971-73).
Ever since the publication of her book, the mud-slinging against Bat Ye’Or’s ideas has continued apace. For just one sample, see this excerpt from a wiki sub-sectioon of “unproved conspiracy theories”. Here we begin with the ever-wrong, ever-hopeful Economist:
The Economist, acknowledging that integration of immigrants was a difficult process, nevertheless rejected the concept of Eurabia as “scaremongering”. Simon Kuper in Financial Times described Ye’or’s book as “little-read but influential”, and akin to “Protocols of the Elders of Zion in reverse”, adding that “though ludicrous, Eurabia became the spiritual mother of a genre”. In another article, Kuper wrote that most academics who have analysed the demographics dismiss the predictions that the EU will have Muslim majorities.
Such Leftist notions fall under that all-too-familiar rubric, “fake but accurate”. They would be funny were they not so damaging. These jornolists, secure from the problems caused by the planned massive immigration of unassimilated third-world Muslims into Europe, continue to ignore the evidence even as Britain slides ever more deeply into the horrid hole created by an unsustainable welfare government.
“Conspiracy theory” my eye!
Perhaps there is hope? Here’s an item sent by a reader:.
74 per cent…think that the Government should slash benefits. Young and old, Labour and Tory, rich and poor: every single social group believes it is time to cut back.
As the pollster Peter Kellner points out, such public unanimity is almost unprecedented. And what’s more, 69 per cent believe our welfare system has ‘created a culture of dependency’, and that ‘people should take more responsibility for their lives and families’.
In other words, people are paying attention to reality. It’s a virtue the chattering classes, instead of stiff-arming uncomfortable facts, would do well to emulate.