Eurabia is a dystopian nightmare, says author Philip Jenkins

Philip Jenkins, author of God’s Continent: Christianity, Islam, and Europe’s Religious Crisis, answers questions from his publishers.

Asked:  Where is Eurabia and what do you think it will look like?

Jenkins: Eurabia is a dystopian nightmare land where white Europeans have very few children while their Muslim neighbors have many, so that Muslim immigrants swamp traditional Europe, making it what Bernard Lewis calls “part of the Western Maghreb”. I have real problems with the idea because I think it’s based on shaky demography, but also because it recalls for me so many nativist campaigns in bygone years – against Catholics in nineteenth century America, Jews in early twentieth century Britain, and so on. It is quite possible that in sixty or eighty years, some fifteen or twenty percent of Europeans might have family roots in Muslim countries, but that is quite different from assuming that they will all be stereotypical “Muslim fanatics”, or even Muslim at all. My guess is that Muslims in Germany will be very German, Muslims in Britain very British, and so on. By all means, let Europe and the United States suppress extremists and violent radicals, but that’s quite different from panicking over people who happen to be from the Middle East or South Asia.

Another Question: The public tends to have an anti-Islam backlash after an event like 9/11 or the French riots. How does your book debunk alarmist assumptions about Islam?

Jenkins: There is plenty to worry about in contemporary Europe, and I write at some length about some of the extremist parties and movements that threaten lethal violence. Yet I make several points that people have really fail to note.

First, the numbers of Muslims are far smaller than most Americans think, so that a maximum of around 4.5 percent of Europeans are presently of Muslim stock – and I use that phrase advisedly. When we talk about “Muslims”, often we are including many non-religious people who happen to have roots in Muslim societies, but who are not followers of Islam in any religious sense. If we look at an American city or state which is four or five percent minority, we probably call that community “white”, so why do we have a more hostile response to a comparable number of Arabs or Muslims in Europe?

Critically too, I’m not sure that many of the incidents that people cite when they warn about “Eurabia” arise from the issue of Islam as a religion, as opposed to conflicts of race and class, and the best example of that would be the French riots of 2005. I see very little evidence of any religious motivation there. This does not mean that such outbreaks are not serious, but governments have to respond to them differently than they would if they represented a true religious movement.

Also, we should not complain about Muslim failure to assimilate into European societies when these populations have been there such a short time. Think how poorly assimilated America’s minorities were in the 1920s, which is a fair comparison – about thirty years after the beginning of the main influx.

Finally, forecasts about Muslims taking over Europe assume that Muslim birth rates will continue to be very high. All immigrant populations have high fertility in the first generation, but usually that usually falls within a generation or so, and that is exactly what we are seeing in Europe. Moreover, the home countries for most of Europe’s migrants have experienced a dramatic fall in fertility just in the past decade, and that will certainly have its impact in Europe itself.

For the full article, visit VirtueOnLine.org

Flashback: US Congressman says Jews are behind war against Iraq

  

by
Ernesto Cienfuegos
La Voz de Aztlan

Los Angeles, Alta California – March 11, 2003 – (ACN) Congressman James P. Moran Jr. of Virginia said that “American Jews are responsible for pushing the country to war with Iraq” and that powerful and influential Zionist leaders are manipulating Bush. Congressman Moran made the remarks at an anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia that was held at St. Anne’s Episcopal Church on March 3. “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,” Congressman Moran said. Congressman James P. Moran is a seven-term Democratic incumbent.

A growing number of Americans seem to be waking up to the realization that US Middle East policies are being driven by both the Jewish and the Oil Lobbies as well as by ultra-right wing Zionist-Christian fanatics who are fervently awaiting the “rapture” and the “end times”. It is the Jews, however, that are orchestrating the varied interests involved in pushing the war.

There are Powerful Zionists in the Bush Administration that are the primary architects of the “Attack Iraq” campaign because this strategy will ultimately advance Israel’s’ and the International Zionist’s agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere around the globe. Among the principal Bush Administration Zionists pushing hardline policies against Islam are Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Ari Fleischer and Harlan Ullman. Richard Perle is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy and is presently Chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board. Perle is also a former director of Israel’s Jerusalem Post newspaper. Paul Wolfowitz is Deputy Secretary of Defense and many believe that he is the principal Zionist in the Bush Administration behind the push to bomb Baghdad. Ari Fleischer is the White House Press Secretary who has tight connections with the Jewish dominated media in the USA. Harlan Ullman is the creator of the brutal military strategy called “Shock and Awe” that calls for a “Nagasaki-Hiroshima” type of massive attack on Baghdad and other Islamic targets.

A principal Zionist agenda item is for Israel to take over the entire Middle East and Iraq is its first target. An Iraq war will eliminate one of its primary obstacles and also give Ariel Sharon and opportunity to decimate the entire Palestinian population. It is now no secret that the Khazar Likud Party is planning to take advantage of the confusion created by a US war against Iraq to implement an “ethnic cleansing program” in Palestine. Israel has nuclear weapons as well as horrific arsenals of biological and chemical weapons but because of Israel’s support by American Jews and Zionists in the Bush Administration, no one is questioning it. It is now un-American and un-patriotic to question Israel and the billions of US taxpayer’s dollars that go to fund the Israeli armed forces killing machine.

The Oil Lobby, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney as well as their cronies will benefit enormously when they take over and control Iraq’s oil fields. Already a company tied to Vice President Dick Cheney has won a Pentagon contract for advice on rebuilding Iraq’s oil fields after the war. The contract was disclosed in a Defense Department statement concerning preparations for Iraq’s possible destruction of it’s oil fields in the event of a U.S.-led invasion. The statement calls for proposals on how to handle oil well fires and for assessing other damage to oil facilities. The contract went to Kellogg Brown & Root Services, which is owned by Halliburton Co., of which Cheney was chairman until his election in 2000. Also, National Security Advisor Congoleezza Rice’s former company, Chevron, will stand to profit immensely through the US control of Iraq’s oil fields. Congoleezza was on the Board of Directors of Chevron just prior to her appointed by Bush and Chevron named an oil tanker after her.

The third group pushing for war against Iraq and against Islam generally are the Christian Zionists. A Christian Zionist is a Christian who looks with favor on the Jewish return to Zion because of the biblical significance of this return. Traditional Christian thinking said that God’s covenant with the Jews had been diluted by the Jews failure to accept Jesus as the Messiah. The Church viewed itself as the continuation of the ‘Israel of God’, made up of Jews and Gentiles alike who accepted Christ. Under the doctrine of “Replacement Theology” it was the Christians who now were God’s chosen people, carrying out God’s will on earth. All earlier religions, including the Jews, had to accept Christ or were lost. But in the 1830s a new school of thought was put forth by John Nelson Derby, an Englishman. Derby’s views are known as “dispensationalism”.

In dispensationalist doctrine, the final stage of history before the advent of the Antichrist and the second coming of Christ, would see a return of diaspora Jews from around the world to the biblical land of Israel. This happened in 1948 with the migration of Jews from Europe and Russia, the establishment of Zionist Israel and the subsequent displacement of the Palestinian native population.

Today, millions of Evangelical and Protestant Christians in the United States and around the world support Israel with an uncritical fervor, exceeding even that of the Jews themselves. These fake Christians turn a blind eye to the atrocities being committed against the Palestinians and thus against the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Israeli Zionist government has recognized the significance of this support since the 1970s, and has deftly taken advantage of it.

Congressman James P. Moran Jr. of Virginia is correct in his assessment that the Jews are behind the imminent attack upon Iraq. They are behind the “feeding of greed” to the warmongering “Oil Barons” in the Bush Administration and they are behind the manipulation of the sinful Christian “dispensationalists”.

Source: http://www.aztlan.net/jewsbehindwar.htm

How the Israeli-American Conspiracy Began

The Truman Administration’s policy on Palestine challenges at its start the “strategic asset” view of the US-Israel relationship, and reinforces the “Israel lobby” view, as argued in the recent article by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Truman’s support for the creation of a Jewish state was due entirely to the US Jewish community, without whose influence Zionist achievements in Palestine would have been for nought. Long before any strategic argument was made, indeed, while a Jewish state was considered a strategic liability, long before Israel’s fundamentalist Christian supporters of today were on the map, the nascent Israel lobby deployed its manifold resources with consummate skill and ruthlessness.

Rabbi Abba Silver, a Cleveland Zionist with Republican contacts, and Zionist official Emmanuel Neumann, initiated “Democratic and Republican competition for the Jewish vote.” In 1944 they “wrung support from the conventions of both parties for the Taft-Wagner [Senate] resolution” supporting abrogation of the Palestine immigration limits in the 1939 British white paper, and the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish commonwealth. Ensuring the traditional loyalty of Jewish voters was a paramount concern of Democratic politicians, up to the president himself, in the New York mayoral election of 1945, the 1946 congressional elections, and the 1948 presidential election.

Gentile opinion was also courted in non-electoral ways, through the American Palestine Committee of notables, constituted in 1941 by Emmanuel Neumann of the American Zionist Emergency Committee. By 1946 it included “sixty-eight senators, two hundred congressmen and several state governors” with “seventy-five local chapters.” It became “‘the preeminent symbol of pro-Zionist sentiment among the non-Jewish American public.’” It was entirely a Zionist front.

Zionist control was discreet but tight. The Committee’s correspondence was drafted in the AZEC headquarters and sent to [chairman New York Senator Robert] Wagner for his signature. Mail addressed to Wagner as head of the American Palestine Committee, even if it came from the White House or the State Department, was opened and kept in Zionist headquarters; Wagner received a copy. The AZEC placed ads in the press under the committee’s name without bothering to consult or advise it in advance, until one of its members meekly requested advance notice.

Dewey Stone, a Zionist businessman, had financed Truman’s vice-presidential campaign in 1944, and businessman Abraham Feinberg, with jewelry magnate Edmund Kauffman, led fundraising for the otherwise penniless 1948 presidential campaign. “If not for my friend Abe, I couldn’t have made the [whistle-stop train] trip and I wouldn’t have been elected,” Truman stated. “Feinberg’s activities began a process that made the Jews into ‘the most conspicuous fundraisers and contributors to the Democratic Party.’”

Key White House advisors ensured the domination of Zionist viewpoints in the highest circles of the Truman Administration. Jewish aides David Niles, administrative assistant to Truman, and Max Lowenthal, special assistant on Palestine to Clark Clifford, himself “Truman’s key advisor on Palestine at the White House,” were especially crucial. Niles was one of two presidential aides retained from the Roosevelt Administration, the other being Samuel Rosenman. Niles was Truman’s chief political liaison with the Jewish community. Lowenthal was the Harvard-trained former counsel to the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee on which Truman had served, who specialized in drafting Zionist memoranda. In 1952 Truman stated in a letter to Lowenthal, “I don’t know who has done more for Israel than you have.” Clifford, an ambitious Missouri lawyer, like so many non-Jewish Democrats saw the manifest political advantages of Zionism; Truman’s 1948 victory launched Clifford’s career as consummate Washington insider. The “White House through its busy and assorted ‘aides’ never wanted for advice on the Palestine question. All together the quantity of well-argued advice coming in through various unofficial channels was enormous and would provide an efficient counter to that coming from the president’s official foreign policy-making body, the State Department.”

This formidable apparatus was deployed at every twist and turn on the sinous path of events that culminated in Israel’s creation. In 1945 the Zionist lobby linked concern for the Jewish displaced persons languishing in European camps to the Palestine question, and pressured Truman to endorse a Jewish Agency proposal for the British to admit 100,000 Jewish immigrants to Palestine. In April, 1946, a joint Anglo-American commission, with US Zionist members, duly endorsed the immigration proposal, among others, and talks about a comprehensive political settlement continued, resulting in the Morrison-Grady plan for a federal state with autonomy for Arab and Jewish provinces. Truman thought this then and later “the best of all solutions proposed for Palestine.” The plan fell short of Zionist aspirations toward partition, and under intense pressure, with the fall elections looming, Truman reluctantly declined to endorse it.

The Jewish Agency Executive, the governing body of the Zionist settlement in Palestine, proposed partition in early August. On October 4, 1946, the eve of Yom Kippur, Truman delivered his famous statement noting the Morrison-Grady plan, and the Jewish Agency partition proposal, calling the latter a solution which “would command the support of public opinion in the United States.” Despite Truman’s further observations that “the gap between the proposals” could be bridged, and that the US government could support such a compromise, the statement was intepreted as support for partition and a Jewish state, as Niles predicted to the author, the Jewish Agency representative in Washington, whose original draft had been modified by the State Department.

The Yom Kippur statement marked a watershed in the political and diplomatic struggle for the Jewish state. The British saw in the statement a demonstration of Jewish political power and gave up their quest for an Anglo-American consensus on Palestine. [British Foreign Secretary] Bevin began issuing threats that the British would evacuate Palestine, and in February 1947 they did indeed refer the question with no recommendation to the United Nations.

The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine was formed after the British announcement. Truman, “undoubtedly embarrassed by accusationsthat he had exploited the Palestine question for domestic political gain” with his Yom Kippur statement, thereafter remained silent. Before the UNSCOP decision, Truman still retained hope for the 1946 Morrison-Grady plan. When on August 31, 1947, UNSCOP announced its majority decision recommending partition, the administration came under overwhelming pressure to endorse it.

The State Department, like the War Department and most of the government, and elite opinion generally, viewed good relations with the Arab states and people as the basis of US interests in the region’s oil, in trade and investment, military basing rights, and excluding the rising bogey of Soviet influence. But the Zionist machine was at full throttle, Democratic politicians from Congress to the Cabinet protested vehemently to Truman about the political consequences, and a statement endorsing partition was made at the UN on October 11. Truman did fear that if partition became a US plan, it would require US military forces to implement. Neither the US nor the USSR, which endorsed partiton two days after the US, lobbied for votes among member states, and on Wednesday, November 26, the General Assembly approved the final draft partition resolution by one vote less than the required two-thirds majority. The partition forces postponed the final vote, and over the Thanksgiving holiday the president, his aides and US diplomats went to work. That Saturday, November 29, partition passed by 33 to 13, with ten abstentions. Truman took personal credit for changing several votes.

The Zionists had been waging war against the British to drive them out of Palestine, and after the UN partition vote, civil war broke out with the Palestinian Arabs, who rejected partition. In February the State Department prepared plans for a UN trusteeship, with White House knowledge and approval. On March 18, a UN commission to monitor events in Palestine, which had predicted further chaos and bloodshed after the British withdrawal on May 14, reported its failure to arrange any agreement between Jews and Arabs. The following day the US ambassador to the UN announced the trusteeship proposal, which brought a political firestorm down on Truman, and on March 25, at a press conference he explained that trusteeship was only a means of eventually implementing the UN resolution for partition. The Arabs rejected it, as did the Zionists.

Yet Truman’s political fortunes continued to plummet; the Democratic Party revolted against his presidential candidacy. As Zionist forces achieved partition (and more) in battle, pressure built for recognition of the Jewish state, expected to be proclaimed on the final day of British withdrawal, May 14. The State Department was opposed; Secretary Marshall feared Jewish military successes would be temporary, that the Zionists would partition Palestine with King Abdullah of Transjordan without reaching a settlement with the Palestinian Arabs (which did happen), and that recognition would prejudice efforts to arrange a truce under UN auspices after May 14. Zionist pressure was ferocious; the White House “aides” were very busy; Clifford essentially commissioned the request for recognition from the Jewish Agency representative in Washington, which was duly delivered to the White House, and at 6:11 PM on May 14 Truman announced de facto recognition of the State of Israel, flummoxing the US delegation at the UN, and US allies. Marshall stated that, during a May 17 discussion, Truman “treated it somewhat as a joke as I had done but I think we both thought privately it was a hell of a mess,” and felt that the US “had hit its all-time low before the U.N.”

US diplomacy in the ensuing Arab-Israeli war was conducted along similar lines. For all his accommodation of Zionism, Truman received only 75% of the Jewish vote, compared to Roosevelt’s typical 90%. Truman lost New York, Dewey’s home state, where there was also a large vote for Wallace. Truman did narrowly win Ohio, Illinois and California, helped by Jewish voters. After describing this tour de force of domestic power politics, Michael Cohen, whose work is mainly quoted here, argues that Israel’s military prowess changed the views of the British and US diplomatic and military establishments. “[T]he White House and State Department, if only ephemerally, came to a consensus on Israel’s vital importance to the West as a ‘strategic asset.”‘ The qualification “ephemerally” acknowledges the Eisenhower presidency, during which Israel was largely not regarded as a strategic asset.

Cohen attributes Truman’s susceptibility to Zionist influence to a “unique set of circumstances that converged to determine the fate of Palestine,” including Jewish friends, White House advisors, key Jewish Democratic Party fundraisers, and Zionist military prowess, which “should not be expected ever to repeat themselves.” The circumstances were not at all unique, but have been practically a recipe for quasi-sovereign Jewish influence on foreign policy in Democratic administrations. By institutionalization throughout the political culture, this influence extends to Republican administrations as well; Eisenhower was an exception. Such influence is not sinister or conspiratorial, but the overt working of US-style capitalist democracy, albeit on behalf of racism, war and genocide, and with a paralyzing effect, in this case, on the liberal circles which usually oppose such matters.

The chauvinism of US organized Jewry is a distinctive feature of US society and history, comparable in importance to classic US singularities like slavery, and the absence of a socialist left, and their crippling legacies. Jewish influence in the Democratic Party, and its impact on foreign policy, notably on the inability of Democrats to mount a critique of the Iraq war and Middle East policy, is comparable to the influence of the Dixiecrats, the segregationist Southern Democrats, on civil rights, labor law and other issues. The moral antipode to organized Jewish power is not an orthodoxy which misattributes Jewish influence to “strategic interest,” but anti-Zionism. Left internationalism, in which Jews were prominent, and classical Reform Judaism, once the dominant Jewish creed, emphatically rejected Zionism as a reactionary ideology, rejected modern Jewish nationality, and affirmed the Jewish place as a minority in liberal or revolutionary society. Anti-Zionism need not mean, immediately, a secular democratic state in Palestine, but the moral and intellectual framework which rejects Zionist claims on Jewish identity and gentile conscience, and asserts liberal and revolutionary values against radical nationalism.

Harry Clark grew up in the Illinois congressional district represented for twenty-two years by Paul Findley, a centrist Republican. Findley’s support for the Palestinians aroused the ire of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, which eventually drove him from office. Studying Zionism is an avocation.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-usa-how-it-began.html

The Real Cost of US Support for Israel: $3 Trillion

While it is commonly reported that Israel officially receives some $3 billion every year in the form of economic aid from the U.S. government, this figure is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many billions of dollars more in hidden costs and economic losses lurking beneath the surface. A recently published economic analysis has concluded that U.S. support for the state of Israel has cost American taxpayers nearly $3 trillion ($3 million millions) in 2002 dollars.

“The Costs to American Taxpayers of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: $3 Trillion” is a summary of economic research done by Thomas R. Stauffer. Stauffer’s summary of the research was published in the June 2003 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

Stauffer is a Washington, D.C.-based engineer and economist who writes and teaches about the economics of energy and the Middle East. Stauffer has taught at Harvard University and Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. Stauffer’s findings were first presented at an October 2002 conference sponsored by the U.S. Army College and the University of Maine.

Stauffer’s analysis is “an estimate of the total cost to the U.S. alone of instability and conflict in the region – which emanates from the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

“Total identifiable costs come to almost $3 trillion,” Stauffer says. “About 60 percent, well over half, of those costs – about $1.7 trillion – arose from the U.S. defense of Israel, where most of that amount has been incurred since 1973.”

“Support for Israel comes to $1.8 trillion, including special trade advantages, preferential contracts, or aid buried in other accounts. In addition to the financial outlay, U.S. aid to Israel costs some 275,000 American jobs each year.” The trade-aid imbalance alone with Israel of between $6-10 billion costs about 125,000 American jobs every year, Stauffer says.

The largest single element in the costs has been the series of oil-supply crises that have accompanied the Israeli-Arab wars and the construction of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. “To date these have cost the U.S. $1.5 trillion (2002 dollars), excluding the additional costs incurred since 2001,” Stauffer wrote.

The cost of supporting Israel increased drastically after the 1973 Israeli-Arab war. U.S. support for Israel during that war resulted in additional costs for the American taxpayer of between $750 billion and $1 trillion, Stauffer says.

When Israel was losing the war, President Richard Nixon stepped in to supply the Jewish state with U.S. weapons. Nixon’s intervention triggered the Arab oil embargo which Stauffer estimates cost the U.S. as much as $600 billion in lost GDP and another $450 in higher oil import costs.

“The 1973 oil crisis, all in all, cost the U.S. economy no less than $900 billion, and probably as much as $1,200 billion,” he says.

As a result of the oil embargo the United States created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to “insulate Israel and the U.S. against the wielding of a future Arab ‘oil weapon.’” The billion-barrel SPR has cost U.S. taxpayers $134 billion to date. According to an Oil Supply Guarantee, which former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger provided Israel in 1975, Israel gets “first call” on any oil available to the U.S. if Israel’s oil supply is stopped.

Stauffer’s $3 trillion figure is conservative as it does not include the increased costs incurred during the year-long buildup to the recent war against Iraq in which Israel played a significant, albeit covert, role. The higher oil prices that occurred as a result of the Anglo-American campaign against Iraq were absorbed by the consumers. The increase in oil prices provided a huge bonus for the leading oil companies such as British Petroleum and Shell, who are major oil producers as well as retailers. The major international oil companies recorded record profits for the first quarter of 2003.

The Washington Report seeks to “provide the American public with balanced and accurate information concerning U.S. relations with Middle Eastern states.” The monthly journal is known for keeping close tabs on the amount of U.S. taxpayer money that goes to Israel and how much pro-Israel money flows back to Members of Congress in the form of campaign aid.

“The distinction is important, because the indirect or consequential losses suffered by the U.S. as a result of its blind support for Israel exceed by many times the substantial amount of direct aid to Israel,” Shirl McArthur wrote in the May 2003 issue of Washington Report.

McArthur’s article, “A Conservative Tally of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: $97.5 Billion – and Counting” tallies the hidden costs, such as interest lost due to the early disbursement of aid to Israel and funds hidden in other accounts. For example, Israel received $5.45 billion in Defense Department funding of Israeli weapons projects through 2002, McArthur says.

Loans made to Israel by the U.S. government, like the recently awarded $9 billion, invariably wind up being paid by the American taxpayer. A recent Congressional Research Service report indicates that Israel has received $42 billion in waived loans. “Therefore, it is reasonable to consider all government loans to Israel the same as grants,” McArthur says.

Support for Israel has cost America dearly – well over than $10,000 per American – however the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been extremely costly for the entire world. According to Stauffer, the total bill for supporting Israel is two to four times higher than that for the U.S. alone – costing the global community an estimated $6 to $12 trillion.

Finis
Courtesy Rumor Mill News Agents Forum

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-usa-israel-true-cost-aid.html