The coming of Eurabia

Diana West reports on the emergence of Eurabia:

Few of us have the long-view vision to make sense of the sweep of history as it smokes past our eyes; Bat Ye'or, as a historian of Islam, and, in particular, the dhimmi (the non-Muslim peoples who live as second-class citizens under Islamic rule), has precisely the laser-lens required. She also has the fortitude of the historian/gumshoe to wade through the stacks of articles, memoranda and conference declarations generated by something called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD).

Created 30-odd years ago at the instigation of France and the Arab League, the practically unknown EAD has provided structural and theoretical underpinnings to a Euro-Arab axis " Eurabia. These have fostered the political, economic and cultural bonds between Europe and the Arab world that Bat Ye'or maintains were designed to create "a global alternative to American power."

How? Very basically " and this is detailed in the book " by shepherding a meeting of Euro-Arab minds, first and foremost, on the Arab League war on Israel. This would come about in exchange for freely flowing Arab oil into Europe, which would come about in exchange for freely flowing Muslim immigration into Europe, which would come about in exchange for research and development and labor and education and tourism and cultural ties between the Europe and the Arab world... which would all come about with an increasing independence of, and, indeed, hostility toward America.

This goes a long way toward explaining the behavior of Old Europe " the heart of Eurabia " since September 11. It also leaves a question hanging when the New York Times pegs Muslim immigration into Europe to a simple "postwar labor shortage": Is that really all the news that's fit to print?

Trying to assess the rise of the anti-immigration party Vlaams Belang, which represents almost a quarter of the Belgian electorate today, the New York Times reporter seems perplexed. This is how I think he thinks: To be anti-immigration is to be, as he puts it, "far right" or "extreme right." And to be "far right" or "extreme right" is to be very, very bad. Weren't Nazis both far and extreme right " or is that the Republican Party? Whatever.

He knows Islam is a religion, although he doesn't seem to know it is also a political system. And to be prejudiced against religiosity (but not Christianity or Zionism) is very, very bad also. So, Mr. Smith writes: "Many people" " himself, for instance?" " "worry that the appeal of anti-Islamic politics will continue to spread as the European Muslim population grows." No mention, of course, that to be "anti-Islamic politics" is to be anti-sharia law, which sounds perfectly Jeffersonian to me.

Around the Blogosphere:

Frontline on Eurabia

An evening with Bat Ye'or

Syria a la Milius