Efter Bat Ye'ors tal i Toronto förra fredagen (finns att läsa här) stannade hon till i New York där bloggaren Pamela Geller Oshry fick en längre intervju.
Tänkte att man kunde passa på att uppmärksamma Bat Ye'or efter radioinslaget förra veckan, så här är videoklippet från intervjun samt en del av dess transkript, från cirka 9 minuter och framåt (efter att Ye'ors uppväxt och Suezkrisen behandlats och samtalet styr in på lite mer aktuella frågor). Komplett intervju på 76 minuter finns på Atlas Blog Talk Radio och hela transkriptet på Atlas intervju-bloggpost.
Jag har inte läst Bat Ye'ors Eurabia än och en del i intervjun är häpnadsväckande. Exempelvis att de ekonomiska medel vi gett och ger palestinierna i själva verket är en lösen för att slippa terror. Hennes arbete ska dock vara oerhört omsorgsfullt utfört. Intressant var uppgiften att man från 70-talet på universiteten upphört att i historieundervisningen nämna dhimmitude under islamiskt styre och att en omfattande förändring skett beträffande detta (från efter mitten av transkriptet nedan; särskilt sista styckena).
PGO: And here we are today, and there is talk about Bush reaching out to talk to Muslim Brotherhood. What do you think about that?
BY: Well, because there is a policy now which is totally different from before, from the 1970th. The policy is that we don't want anymore war. And in order to avoid having war we have to speak to the enemy and we have to defuse the conflict through pacific means. This is the policy of Europe.
PGO: Do you believe in that?
BY: Well, I think that it goes in a certain way, but if one insist that one can not defuse the conflict, that the enemy will have its way..., like from recent with Hitler -- because this policy was used with Hitler too; appeasement; the appeasement policy -- so it goes until a certain point but no more, because then afterward the conflict will be, anyway, but it will be even more terrible with more victims and more violent.
PGO: Now in “Eurabia” you outlined the Euro-Arab axis, that it wasn’t an accident, but there was a deliberate plan, and was the object? What was the objective?
BY: Well, in this book I examined particularly this policy of appeasement that was conducted by Europe, the European community. This time it was the nine countries, and it started in part after the Kippur War in 1973, and it was in fact a French plan. France didn’t want to lose their colonies, and they want to have good relations with their Arab colonies -- you know that France had huge Arab colonies -- and after the Algerian war of liberation they lost all their colonies. They lost Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, the last one. They wanted to have good relations with these countries, and they went along they have tacted. The plan drawn by the Mufti, the Mufti of Jerusalem.
PGO: Right, and he was with the Nazis?
BY: He was with the Nazi. There were many Nazi also in Egypt, and Egypt was part, also, of this plan, and the plan was to build up a strong alliance with France and the Arab countries, and against America and against the protestant people.
PGO: Now, why against America? As a counter-power?
BY: Yes, first of all as a counter-power, but because America has saved the world from Nazism. It is thanks to America that the dictatorships like fascism, like Nazism were defeated. So America was the big enemy. It was a democratic and it was the big enemy of dictatorship and of the fascism regimes. Now, there were many Nazi people who has immigrated in Egypt and lived in Egypt under the Nasser regime, and of course they were very friendly with the Mufti, so this plan was built up against America and against Israel. Now de Gaulle, who was part of this sought to bring not only France, but the European community. Then the nine countries. Because this time de Gaulle and Germany were building together the European community; the integration.
PGO: Yes, the integration, it would eliminate the European countries, so to speak.
BY: Not only that. It would make out of Europe a huge block, because it would not be only France, it would be nine countries allied with twenty-two Arab countries. It would have make a fantastic block which would be more powerful than America, and this was the object, and for the Arabs, not so much for the French although there were many anti-Semites still in France ... . France was in ally with the German regime, the German Nazi regime, so it has collaborate in the deportation of Jews and the extermination of Jews.
PGO: But the people in Europe really were not onboard with this, they didn’t know that this was happening.
BY: No, they didn’t know but still there were people who were very favorable to such a position, because from the beginning of the century there was such an anti-Semitic climate in France and in whole of Europe. If it wouldn’t have been, there wouldn’t have been also the genocide of the Jews, if the climate was not so anti-Jewish. And it is not because the American and the ally with the allies’ troop succeeded in crushing down Nazism that all those feelings disappeared from one day to another.
PGO: Oh no, it could never happen!
BY: So it has continued under another name, and this was of course the anti-Zionists and the hate of the state of Israel, but it was the same anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. So what happened then? After the Kippur War, the European countries that were reluctant to follow the French plan accepted, because they were faced with the oil boycott.
PGO: Yes, in the 70th.
BY: Yes, and not only that but with Palestinian terrorism which started in 1968 in Europe, in several cities of Europe.
PGO: And they handled it very badly.
BY: Yes, and they didn’t know. It was the first time it happened so they didn’t know how to answer on that.
PGO: They should have crushed it!
BY: Yes, but how to crush it? They didn’t know, so they thought: "Okay, we’ll go into that plan, we do this appeasement policy"..., because this was the European countries who wants to have good relations with the Arab world, and with the sheikdom, and with the countries now producing so much oil, so they needed oil for their economy. So they say: “Okay, we go into this alliance with the Arab world, and we shall do business with them”, but the Arab league countries put as a condition to open a dialogue with the European countries on two conditions; that Europe will recognize Arafat as the only representative of the Palestinian people and that they will support the PLO, which was a terrorist organization and have a policy contradict to that of America. So they enter into this dialogue.
PGO: Yes, ... the deal with the devil.
BY: Yes, the deal with the devil. And from that moment Europe changed it policy against Israel, but I think its soul changed because...
PGO: Europe's soul changed. That’s important; an important quote.
BY: Yes. Because it has to support the Palestinian war, jihad against Israel.
PGO: It has to support barbarism.
BY: Which is support barbarism, which is to support jihad ideology which is, as well, as much anti-Jewish as anti-Christian, and which is legitimized by the evilness of the Jews and Christians or of the infidels also. It is based on that, so when Europe support this and legitimize it intellectually, and also with its heart, its soul and heart support the destruction of the state of Israel, it supported also its own evilness and its own destruction. And since this moment it follows therefore the Palistinization of Europe, of the whole mentality of Europe -- the whole vision and interpretation of history and of events according to the Palestinian vision , which is the eternal evilness of its enemy Israel, which is linked also to the Christian and the West. So Europe destroyed itself. It destroyed its own, first of all, Christianity, and give in to the Palestinians to attack the Christianity in Lebanon. Because the Palestinian war was not only against Israel. The Palestinian, you have to see them as a tool or as an instrument of the Arab world to destroy Israel, and also as a channel to penetrate into Europe and Islamize Europe. It is exactly what they have done.
PGO: I understand, but even the [???] Palestinian is a marketing term. What was really the Palestinians? The Arabs living in Gaza but were Egyptian Arabs.
PGO: So they came with this term in 1967. It’s a myth. It’s an Arab narrative.
BY: Yes. You phrase it totally. I think the Palestine and the myth of the Palestinian was created by European; by European anti-Semite, like Jacques Berque, for instance, who is a great islamologue and arabist who is teaching on the Institute Francaise. He’s very well known because he was he champion of this anti-Israeli policy of the French government, but there was others also in England and in other countries. But in Europe the leftist movement... of course the communist were behind the Palestinians, so all the communists and the leftist movement supported the Palestinians, supported this vision because they were anti-American. So at this moment there was a real polarization of the political life in Europe, with the left, the communists, the socialists supporting the Palestinian and the destruction of Israel and the fight against America.
PGO: Yes, but there are people, the people of Europe, they don’t like what’s going on. I mean, do you think they can actually, at any point wall off their cities? I mean, this is evolving, this is not static, this is fluid...
BY: Yes. I mean what happen to people, the European people, it is that all this is a policy that was created by networks and went through -- was imposed -- to the European through the universities; through institutes that were created, through media...
PGO: It’s America!
BY: Exactly, and with false justification, a mythological justification.
PGO: Yes, it’s an Arab narrative.
BY: Yes, with a political agenda, supporting the Palestinians, and whoever would say the contrary, would oppose, would lost his work, would be boycotted, he wouldn’t be able to be published and so on. So this was a censorship also, under reality and on the opposition. Now, what the European people thought of that were many intellectual people saw very well, and many religious also; priests and reverence in the reform churches. They were totally opposed to that, and they fought very strongly against it. They saw it. They saw that the ancient anti-Semitism, which they had so strongly vote against, in the preceding years and the Nazism -- because not everyone that was the anti-Semitical newhop. There were many people who opposed that movement, but they were taken into it and they were prisoners of that. You know, when you see a blockage of everything; you can not write in the newspaper, you can not speak on the television. Your voice is not, has not...
PGO: Is silent.
BY: Is silent! They silence you through censorship all the time. But Nevertheless these people fought with whatever possibility there was. So the resistance against anti-Semitism, against anti-Americanism, against this policy was there, but was not listened to; do not appear.
PGO: Yes, but I have to ask... The past two days... Now what we’ve seen in New York now clearly is the reality on the ground that you predicted, your sagacity, your prescience, actually your evidence, it wasn’t a conjecture, it was your evidence that you put forth in Eurabia, so now we seen it. It’s coming to prevision, it’s what you said. And here they are yesterday, the two London bombings and we know that it’s jihadis and we know that it’s al Qaeda it has ties to and now Glasgow, and the first thing as it is happening British officials -- government officials -- and the police and the pundits are saying: there’s no responsible, it has nothing to do with religion, this is a couple of crazies. I mean there is a denial. There is a wilful denial. Now, I’m asking you, as a the citizens of this country are they looking at this and go “Ah okay, that make sense!”? Because it doesn’t make sense at all!
BY: Yes, but what do you want them to do? Do you want people to go against Muslims? And then, what will happen? There will be xenophobic attacks then with a violent reaction, which should not be, because of course there are this Islamist policy which we see, but not everyone are responsible for that. So I know myself absolutely wonderful Muslim people. Now they look Muslim. I will be terribly ashamed if people would go after them and just say “Look what other Muslims have done, so we kill you”, and they are innocent. Because you cannot control mass movement. You have to be very careful. You have to keep the people so they don’t become crazy. You know, we have crazy people among European. Not everyone is rational, and people who takes drugs, people who drinks and suddenly they see... it happen I France, a group of crazy people who saw an Arab ..., they don’t like Arabs and they throw him into the Seine, to the river, and he drowned.
PGO: No-no, that’s not [...]
BY: Because just they don’t like an Arab, and they don’t know who is this Arab. So government has to be -- it is their responsibility -- they have to look for social peace. They have to be very careful. They have to say things that suddenly create a racist movement violent against a whole community.
PGO: I agree. The community that is responsible, don’t you think they taking something of a pass? Don’t you think these mosques must be monitored? I mean, I’m totally against the Expo incident. Totally against going after anyone because of the crime of another man. I’m talking about going after the Islamists, the preachers who preach the terror..., but it’s not enough to just be there when a bomb goes off. I mean you got to go to the incubator of hate.
BY: Yes, but English government has never done that. This is very strange, because this is the result of ten years of policy of Blair and of the Labour government. The Labour government always pendled to the Islamists, and London have become for years the centre of Islamists. And why they did that? Were they afraid... Did England vote its security -- homeland security -- by allowing Islamist to [get?] asylum. To Islamists. Because terrorism is everywhere in Europe, you know you buy your security since 1973 -- since Europe has made this deal with the Palestinian terrorism, to recognize them, to receive them, to honor them. So Europe has lost the control of its own security. It relies for its security on the honor it give to the terrorist, and to ransom money. We are paying billions to Palestinians without even knowing what they are doing with this money.
PGO: We know, they buying weapons and so on.
BY: Yes. So the tax payers are in fact paying to terrorist gang for its security. This is what we are doing in Europe. Like the dhimmi we are paying for our security. We live under the regime of dhimmitude without European knowing it, because the whole of the west is doing that. The whole of the west is paying security money, because we haven't fought this war; the war against terrorism we haven't fought.
"Without get rid of Israel..., it's only Israel and that's finished", we saw it, and from a small angle. We didn’t saw the enormous implication in morality, in political strategically angels but also culturally. Because our universities are submitted to the cultural jihad.
PGO: Oh, [...] our universities has been submitted to cultural jihad!
BY: Yes, because we adopt the Islamist view of history, which deny the history of the dhimmitude -- the history of the dhimmis denied. This is why we don’t know it in the west. Before that -- before this change in policy in 1973 -- this history of Islamic expansion and Islamic treatment of the countries I has conquered, and the population it has conquered and submitted, then were known. It was taught in universities.
PGO: It was taught in universities...
BY: Yes, this was 40 years ago, 50 years ago, this was absolutely... because there was texts on it, there was books, there were Muslim books.
PGO: This is what I found cautious and is always so upset about, because the books know are historically inaccurate.
BY: Yes, everything are inaccurate, because of the Islamization and Palestinization of the universities. Because it is in the universities that the Palestinian cult against Israel, against the west, against America developed. It is in fact the Palestinization of the universities that have totally obfuscated this reality, the history. And us in the west, we are the heir of the Greek and Roman civilization. We have to have our studies based on fact, on rationalism, and they should be separate from policies. They should not be submitted to policies. Now we are submitted to policy.
Fortsättningen på intervjun, efter detta videoklipp (en bit ned på denna sida), är också riktigt intressant, dels om hur islam måste förändras och överge jihad för en fredlig tolkning, och dels om Bushs strategi av alliansbygge i arabvärlden och det problem som tornar upp sig om detta misslyckas -- i synnerhet för Europa. De perpektiv Bat Ye'or för fram är verkligen ögonöppnande! Hon menar även bl a att "the Western media is allied with the terrorist force" och skulle kunna bli de som orsakar ett för väst samt kampen mot militant islam i arabvärlden ödesdigert nederlag i Irak.
Om att Amerika för närvarande söker vinna islams själ och hjärta kommenterar Ye'or med att "America will win the heart and soul of Islam when it will accept to be Islamized ... So it shouldn't ...". Samtidigt är hon noga på att skilja på muslimer som övergett jihad och dagens radikala islam.
Andra bloggar om: samhälle, bat yeor, egypten, israel, europa, arabvärlden, dhimmi, dhimmitude, palestina, antisemitism, plo, israelhat, amerikahat, labour, cultural jihad, kulturell jihad, islamisering, islamization, islam, atlas shrugs