Bat Ye'or - The Palestinization of Europe
Here is Part 2 of the October interview with Bat Ye'or. Here she describes the "Palestinization" of Europe and the way the policies of Europe shifted fatally to the Palestinian cause, creating in Europe an intense hatred of Israel. This shift, for Bat Ye'or, marks a continuation of Nazism. She discusses the disaster of Obama's 2008 election and the harm it has done to the United States by weakening our resolve and our loyalty to the West and to Israel. She emphasizes that by shifting to a pro-Islamic position the West has not only placed Israel in grave existential danger but all of Christianity as well.
Re-read Part One here.
- Eurabia in fact began because Europe adopted the Palestinian rhetoric and the Palestinian political vision. (…) What is this Palestinian vision? The Palestinian vision is that Israel does not have the right to exist and that the Palestinian people are destined to replace it. This vision is based on an Islamic vision of History meaning that Islam existed before Judaism and Christianity; the story of the Bible is a Muslim story that has been deformed by the Bible and therefore the true inhabitants of Palestine - the land of Israel - are the Muslims.
And Europe adopted this vision, it rejected the rational version of History - that there is proof from the time of King Tut of the existence of Israel. (…) There is archeological evidence of the existence of Israel, there were books written, there were the Romans, there's a candelabra from Israel that you can see in Rome, well before Islam. And then we know how Christianity developed, there's a whole story of Christianity that preceded Islam. No. Europe adopted the Islamic Palestinian jihadist vision against Israel, against Christianity. And at the same time, Europe also adopted the jihadist values of war against Israel. Europe has not stopped waging war against Israel. And in this alliance with Palestine, with Arafat, Europe has reunited with its Nazi roots, with the Nazi war.
Europe had always maintained contact with the Nazis who had migrated to Arab countries and with other Nazis holding high administrative posts in the European governments after the war, and the European States adopted the Palestinian policy of a second choice against the people of Israel. And at the same time it adopted a vision of the destruction of Christianity. What is special about the alliance with Islam - after all, Israel alone could have been destroyed through another ideology - is that this ideology implies also the destruction of Christianity. When you say the Jewish people did not exist and that Jesus was a Muslim prophet, you suppress Jesus and all of the teachings of Christianity.
You could say, "religions are obsolete, none of this is important." But religions bequeathed values to us, such as "thou shalt not kill", the ten commandments, the equality of all human beings, all human beings are similar, made in the image of God, life is imprescriptible - you cannot destroy it. All these values - "love your neighbor as yourself", all these values are destroyed and replaced by those in the Koran. So by accepting Palestinization and the fight waged by Palestine for the destruction of Israel, they have denied their own roots of Europe, and all the accomplishments of European culture. This seems to me to be very dangerous for Europe, but there is also in this Palestinization process the destruction of nations - since Islam has a vision of the Umma, not of nations. There is the destruction of European cultures, the desire to erase the whole past, in order to allow Europe through the creation of Palestine to reach an understanding, a fusion with the Muslim world which will allow the Islamization of Europe. That is what Palestinization means, we can see it today, it was Europe that paid the most and that created Palestine, which means that Palestine is Europe, against Israel: it is the continuation of the Nazi war.
- In a few weeks there will be the American election. Can you give us a resume of Obama's four years and tell us your opinion of his politics and compare it to that of the European Union?
- Yes. Before Obama's election, the Democratic Party had issued a very interesting set of documents, you can see it on the Internet, in which it exposed its policies. These documents go under the name of Change. It is very interesting. It is a replica of the Eurabia policy. So we know what to expect from the election of Obama. And all of Europe is deeply involved in Obama's election because for years Eurabia has been sending emissaries from the European Union who attempted to direct American policy to abandon Israel and to support Palestine.
Chris Paten, who was the European Commissioner, constantly sent these emissaries, he went himself to talk to the U.S. officials, to try to make them change their policy. Bush did change, because America created the Lebanese State. America supported the Muslim Brotherhood. There was a great deal of collusion between the American government and the Islamist movement. It's true that it was to oppose the Soviet Union, but nonetheless, this policy did a great deal of harm to the Muslim populations themselves who are prisoners of the Taliban system. It even supported al-Qaida and Bin Laden. So there are all these elements in American policies. It is not an ingenue .
But with Obama it appears that Europe could at last achieve its goal - the abandoning of Israel. You cannot begin to fully imagine the extent of the hatred in Europe for this small people and this minuscule State, and the enormous forces that move enormous countries, and continents, forces of hatred that want to destroy it. So, America was still supporting Israel and under pressure from Muslim States, from the OCI - not terroristic pressures but economic pressures, that tried to force America to abandon Israel, and make this little State disappear from the face of the earth. Hence, this "Obama disaster," as writer Guy Millière calls it, did a great deal of harm, not so much to Israel, but to America, because Obama adopted a policy of weakening of America.
Since the Western camp was already very weakened, an America that is weakening as well indicates a collapse of the West at a moment when there is a proliferation of nuclear arms, a terrible economic crisis, probably an oil crisis. In Europe this would be terrifying, businesses would shut down. It's a moment when America is struck by a financial crisis, when China is developing, and there are other powers in Asia, it's a moment of profound instability. We cannot predict anything. And the time when Europe could still have defended itself, the time when Europe could still have spoken out, this time has perhaps passed.
I am not a politician, but I do not see how you can find a solution to all of these enormous problems that are assailing us. An aggressive immigration of people that refuse to integrate, except for a few who are motivated to integrate, most do not want to. So already there is an unstable situation in Europe created by a threatening immigration, and the reactions it arouses, such as Breivik's crime. We cannot exclude acts of madness. We don't know how to respond. What are going to do? We don't know where these acts of madness come from. I think it is very important for Europeans to reflect seriously about the current situation. The governments have created a society of bread and circus, with soccer, mega-concerts, etc…
Our civilization, our world, is now engaged in very dangerous situations in which we need all the men of talent to indicate to us what we must not do and how we must conduct ourselves, but in order to do this we must understand the situation. And I believe that the struggle we are in to keep our freedoms… this struggle can only be fought in the realm of dhimmitude. That will be the battlefield. Either we will be dhimmis, or we will remain free. The choice is between dhimmitude and freedom, but if you don't know what dhimmitude is, you won't be able to fight. You won't understand the arms that your enemy is using and you won't know how to react.
This is why it is very important to listen to those people who come from countries that have been martyred: Iraq, Egypt, Syria, where non-Muslims have constantly been the target of hatred and violence. But also Muslims. Because the crimes perpetrated there are crimes of the jihadist Palestinians who set car bombs, or who blow up anybody. These are the jihadist Palestinian methods that have become generalized. This is what our support of the Palestinians has brought us: the destruction of our civilization.
Should I end on an optimistic note? It's better. I think we have to have confidence in the young generations. A handful of persons from my generation have carried the burden of this combat. They have paved the way, they have indicated the route, it has been a tough combat and very violent. But it is up to the young to understand the situation because it is their future. It is up to the young to understand the consequences, the risks of this situation. And I feel sure they will be courageous, they will face it, keeping to their own weapons (i.e. fighting fair). There are several ways of fighting. The most difficult way is to keep to one's own weapons. Israel is an example of this. Confronted with the most awful degradation, with the most violent of hatreds, Israel, nonetheless, keeps to its own weapons. Because in Israel there exists no anti-Palestinian violence against the Muslim or Christians who live in Israel. (…) It's very difficult, it's a moral discipline you have to force on yourself - you must not become like those who attack you. You must keep your self-respect in your fight.
Note: In the passage above, where she speaks of "keeping to your own weapons", she cites the case of an attack by Israeli youths on four Palestinian teenagers that took place in Zion Square, Jerusalem this past August. The attack was greatly denounced by the Israeli police and triggered a debate in Israel on anti-Arab sentiment. Wikipedia gives an account of the incident.
Note: The notion that you must fight fair even when your adversary does not is, for me, highly debatable. It depends entirely on the situation, what is at stake, and what you have to lose by fighting fair. What does "fair" mean when you are confronted with an implacable enemy? However, that is a discussion for another time.