zaterdag 17 augustus 2019

Exploringing the political role of Christian Zionism






Exploringing the political role of Christian Zionism

Middle East Research and Information Project

JVL Introduction

The political forces behind the Trump administration’s fervent embrace of Israel include groups like Christians United for Israel and its five million Evangelical members.
Mimi Kirk explores the political power of Christian Zionists who believe the establishment of a Jewish ethnostate in Palestine is a requirement for the fulfilment of end-times prophecies
Tha author is managing director of Al-Shabaka, The Palestinian Policy Network.
This article was originally published by Merip on Thu 8 Aug 2019. Read the original here.

Countering Christian Zionism in the Age of Trump


The May 2018 ceremony marking the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem featured many of the usual suspects. US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, Senior Advisor to President Donald Trump Jared Kushner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu all delivered remarks during the more than one-hour-long ceremony that touted the US-Israel relationship and, in Netanyahu’s words, embraced Jerusalem as “the eternal, undivided capital of Israel.”Trump’s embassy move was controversial—but the two speakers who opened and closed the ceremony were equally controversial. Two evangelical Christian megachurch pastors from Texas who advise Trump, Robert Jeffress and John Hagee, earnestly prayed and thanked God for making the state of Israel possible and Trump for having the courage to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people.
“Father, we are…grateful as we think about [the founding of the state of Israel in 1948], when you fulfilled the prophecies of the prophets from thousands of years ago and regathered your people in this promised land,” intoned Jeffress, while Hagee identified Jerusalem as the city “where Messiah will come and establish a kingdom that will never end.”
As Christian Zionists—Hagee is the founder of the main US Christian Zionist organization, Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and Jeffress regularly preaches the ideology on Fox news—the two men’s remarks reflect their belief that the modern state of Israel is the result of biblical prophecy. This belief centers around the idea that 4,000 years ago God promised the land to the Jews, who will rule it until Jesus’ return to Jerusalem and the rapture. Not all will benefit from this end of times scenario: While Christians will be saved and “live forever with Christ in a new heaven and earth,” those adhering to other religions who do not convert to Christianity will be sent to hell.
Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestinians—including those who are Christian—is either ignored or perceived as required to achieve the end result. In this vein, Christian Zionists consider Israel’s expansion into the West Bank via illegal settlements a positive development and even support Israeli expansion into Jordan’s East Bank.
Such a credo necessarily sees faiths outside of Christianity as false or, in the case of Judaism, as also in the service of Christianity. Jeffress, for example, once said that Judaism, Islam and Hinduism “lead people…to an eternity of separation from God in hell,” and Hagee suggested in a 1990s sermon that Hitler was part of God’s plan to get Jewish people “back to the land of Israel.” Yet when questioned about the decision to include such speakers in the ceremony’s lineup, White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said, “I honestly don’t know how that came to be.”
Israel’s Christian Support Base
Despite Shah’s circumvention, the Trump administration very purposefully chose Jeffress and Hagee for the occasion. The pastors—and their white evangelical followers, who comprise a significant portion of Trump’s base with 81 percent having voted for him in 2016—had lobbied the president hard to move the embassy. In an interview with the far-right site Breitbart, Hagee related that he had told Trump: “The moment that you [move the embassy], I believe that you will step into political immortality.” Moreover, the Palestinian Christian human rights lawyer Jonathan Kuttab argued in a Jewish Voice for Peace webinar that Trump’s embassy move was done to please his Christian Zionist base, rather than AIPAC or Netanyahu.
About a quarter of US adults identify as evangelical Christian, and 80 percent of them express the belief that the modern state of Israel and the “re-gathering of millions of Jewish people to Israel” are fulfilments of biblical prophecy that show the return of Jesus is drawing closer. Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, argues that Christian Zionism is now the “majority theology” among white US evangelicals.
That number of Christian Zionists adds up to tens of millions of voters, significant financial resources and a great deal of lobbying influence through organizations like Hagee’s CUFI—as the embassy move showed. Yet the US media and political analysts often approach the Israel lobby as if it were composed solely of Jewish supporters, whose numbers are in fact far smaller than Christian Zionists—AIPAC only boasts 100,000 members, for instance, compared to CUFI’s reported five million—and who are also deeply dividedon US policy on Palestine-Israel.
The brouhaha and accusations of anti-Semitism that erupted in February 2019 after Congressperson Ilhan Omar (D-MN) pointed to AIPAC’s financial influence on US policy toward Israel demonstrate this fixation. Not only do other lobby groups, such as CUFI, wield as much or more influence as AIPAC (financial and otherwise), but AIPAC, as MJ Rosenberg wrote in The Nation, “is not synonymous with Jews.” Of its 100,000 members, he explained, “most are Jewish but…many are evangelical (and other) Christians.”
 Such a focus on American Jewish support for Israel elides how US backing of Israel is at base driven by US geopolitical interests in the Middle East, with its longstanding desire to maintain control over the region’s energy resources and its pursuit of “the war on terror”—with Israel as its firm partner in both endeavors. But it also elides the significant influence of Christian Zionism, particularly at a time when White House leaders like Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are avowed evangelical Christians. Indeed, in 2017 Pence was the first sitting vice president or president to address CUFI.
At the same time, Christian Zionism may be an easier ideology to counter than Jewish Zionism. Activists argue that while Christian Zionism may be a broadly held belief, it is not deeply held. “For most people who espouse this theology, it’s not the center of their belief,” Jonathan Brenneman, a Christian Palestinian-American activist, told me. “When people are confronted with the reality of what is going on in Palestine, the theology often falls apart.”
Ideological Origins of Christian Zionism
 While the specific tenets of today’s Christian Zionism emerged in the nineteenth century, the movement’s ideological roots go back centuries, to the era during which Christianity became part of the Roman Empire under Constantine in the third century AD, stretching to the Crusades and then European colonialism—all cases in which plunder was accomplished under the cover of Christian ideology, namely the idea of the righteousness of Christian domination over non-Christian land and people.
Several new Protestant sects in sixteenth-century Europe held proto-Zionist ideas. Brookings Institution Fellow CĂ©lia Belin has noted that these beliefs, stemming from close and inductive readings of the Bible emerging from the Reformation, renewed interest in end of times debates. “[They] led to a new understanding of the role of the Jewish people in Christian history, leading some to prophesize a return of the Jewish people to the Holy Land,” she wrote.
Iterations of these eschatological ideas spread to America with the Puritans, with the accompanying belief that the colonists escaping religious persecution in England were the new Jews and America the new Israel, promised to them by God. John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, proclaimed in 1630 in his famed “city on a hill” speech that “the Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as his own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways…We shall find that the God of Israel is among us.”
In such a belief system, the indigenous people of Turtle Island were considered against God’s plan and acting against God’s people. “They were considered disposable,” said Brenneman. “There’s a very clear line from that ideology to Christian Zionism.”
The mid-nineteenth century began to see this line realized through the influence of evangelist John Nelson Darby, who through missionary tours across North America popularized the end of times narrative and Jews’ role in it. In 1891, fellow preacher William Blackstone petitioned US President Benjamin Harrison to consider Jewish claims to Palestine “as their ancient home”—five years before Theodor Herzl’s call for a Jewish homeland. Subsequent influential evangelists, such as Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, preached how the first telltale sign of the world coming to an end would be Jews returning to the Holy Land. Scofield’s widely read 1909 annotated Bible proclaimed these tenets.
Gary Burge, an expert on Christian Zionism and a theology professor at Michigan’s Calvin Theological Seminary, pointed out in an interview how the horrors of World War I, the influenza epidemic of 1918, the stock market crash, and World War II then helped solidify end of times beliefs among Christians. “The average person felt like the world was falling apart,” Burge said, “and the founding of the state of Israel in 1948—and then the 1967 war—seemed to them to point directly to the fulfillment of the end of times.”
A Fusion of Religion and Politics
Christian Zionists—as well as evangelicals more broadly—tended to remain apolitical throughout much of the twentieth century. But the social upheaval and rights movements that emerged in the late 1960s spurred this demographic to attempt to stem progressive societal changes through political action, particularly after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
A ready-made constituency was therefore in place for televangelist Jerry Falwell’s 1979 Moral Majority platform, which opposed abortion, the equal rights amendment and gay rights, among other progressive issues, and supported increased defense spending, anti-communism and robust US support for Israel. Falwell and fellow Christian Zionist preachers like Pat Robertson of The 700 Club emphasized the idea that God will only support the United States if the United States supports Israel. “Robertson has described hurricanes and financial prosperity in the US as related to the US position on Israel,” said Burge, “and Falwell used to say that if America backs away from supporting Israel, God will no longer bless America.”
The 1980 election of evangelical-friendly Ronald Reagan and his close (though not always easy) relationship with Falwell and similar conservative Christian leaders solidified the link between the Moral Majority and the Republican Party, giving the movement a seat at the political table and transforming it into the “Christian Right.” The eight-year presidency of born-again Christian George W. Bush furthered the Christian Right’s influence in US politics and foreign policy. Moreover, Bush’s “war on terror” in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks complemented and abetted Israel’s war on its own “terrorists”—Palestinians.
Christian Zionism’s merging of religion and politics has been the driving force behind its more recent influence on US policy. While Trump does not purport to hold evangelical beliefs, he carefully caters to his white evangelical base, gaining their support through the US embassy move and support for Israeli annexation of the Golan Heights and the West Bank, as well as through the choice of Mike Pence as vice president.
In tandem with this mainstreaming, a small group of Christian Zionists is calling for a focus that is less about the end of times scenario in which Jews are sent to hell unless they convert, and more about urging Christians to be sympathetic and supportive of Jews because biblical theology requires that Jews possess the Holy Land. “What they’ve done is slip out the eschatology and lead with the theological promise,” Burge said.
This approach called the “New Christian Zionism” omits the messier details of the Christian Zionist/Jewish-Israeli pact, which requires that leaders like Netanyahu ignore the fate that Christian Zionists imagine for Jews for the sake of political gain. It may perhaps indicate an attempt to provide a more tempered, attractive ideology for young American evangelicals, who in recent years have been exhibiting more liberal views than their elders—including on the question of Israel.
2017 poll by Lifeway Research, for example, demonstrated the generational divide. Only nine percent of older respondents considered the “rebirth” of Israel in 1948 as an injustice to Palestinians, while 62 percent disagreed and 28 percent said they weren’t sure. Among younger evangelicals, nineteen percent said that Israel’s creation was an injustice to Palestinians, 34 percent disagreed, and almost half weren’t sure.
Such a trend may hold promise for Palestinians and their allies working to shift the Christian Zionist narrative and secure Palestinian human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and beyond. Some activists also point to how Christian Zionism is a less entrenched ideology than that of Jewish Zionism, and how exposure to the Palestinian reality on the ground can convince Christian Zionists to shift their thinking.
Countering Christian Zionism
Jonathan Brenneman, the Christian Palestinian-American activist, worked as Israel/Palestine Partners in Peacemaking coordinator for the Mennonite Church. “Christian Zionism is so prevalent in the US that any work by Christians on Palestinian rights has to confront it,” he said. Brenneman believes that education is the best strategy to reach Christian Zionists.
“Christian Zionism is an extremist ideology, but it’s also incredibly broadly held and is part of a larger Christian package of belief,” he said. “Most people who hold it don’t realize they’re holding really hateful beliefs; it’s very much based on ignorance and insularity.” Brenneman adds that such beliefs are rarely challenged, particularly because the mainstream media plays into them by emphasizing, among other tropes, the idea that Israel is always in grave danger from the Palestinians or surrounding Arab states. The result: When Christian Zionists learn of Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians, their belief system is vulnerable to disruption.
Brenneman says the best route to education is for Christian Zionists to tour Palestine-Israel and hear from Palestinian Christians and Jews who challenge the dominant narrative. Groups such as Telos and Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) run tours that aim to trouble this narrative through meetings with a variety of Israelis and Palestinians; in both cases, groups meet with people ranging from Jewish settlers to business leaders to Palestinian activists.
Executive Director of CMEP Mae Elise Cannon also believes that education is the key to changing mindsets and that Christians are generally open to such change. While CMEP does not necessarily oppose Christian Zionist beliefs—the group is composed of nearly 30 church-based organizations with diverse theological framings, including evangelicalism—it works to counter the beliefs’ negative repercussions through the tours as well as speaking engagements in US churches and government advocacy.
“The vast majority of people in the American church want to honor God and are pursuing the goodness of the world,” Cannon told me. “They are open to their mind being changed, but their underlying concern is they think if they shift their political perspective, they won’t be faithful to theology.” Cannon says using the example of Israeli settlements is productive in this regard. “It’s straightforward to show people that they are not following the basic Christian tenet of ‘love thy neighbor’ if they are supporting those who build a settlement on Palestinian farmland that’s been in that family for decades or a century,” she said. “The current realities speak for themselves. We show them that they can honor God while advocating for Palestinian rights, too.”
Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA), a Christian organization seeking justice and peace in Palestine through advocacy and education, focuses on ensuring that Palestinian narratives are heard by American churches. Tarek Abuata, FOSNA’s executive director, stresses that Christian Zionist beliefs aren’t solely held by those who identify explicitly with Christian Zionism but are found throughout mainstream American churches.
“Christian Zionism is not just the John Hagee’s of the world, but is found in Protestant mainline churches, including those that have divested from companies that profit from the Israeli occupation,” he said. “It’s a more nuanced and diffused theology found at the level of hymns as well as in the pulpit.” This phenomenon is also part of what liberation theologian Marc H. Ellis calls the “ecumenical deal” between Christians and Jews, in which mainline Christians are silent on Israel’s abuse of Palestinians to repent for Christianity’s historic anti-Semitism.
With this in mind, FOSNA helps Palestinians tell their stories to a variety of audiences, from Episcopal bishops to Methodist congregations to evangelical groups, training them how to elucidate their narratives and present them in a public space. “We often find a defining event and distill it,” he told me. “For a 25-year-old Palestinian man from Gaza, it was the story of his friend being shot by Israeli soldiers as he checked the level of his water tank on the roof of his home.”
FOSNA also works to counter CUFI. “CUFI isn’t going to provide a space for Palestinians to tell their stories, so we have to confront them,” Abuata said. In July 2019, FOSNA worked with fellow progressive organizations to organize panels and protests in Washington, DC, during CUFI’s annual summit. “We want to present the alternative vision of inclusivity rather than exclusivity that a lot of CUFI adherents might not even be aware that they’re engaged in,” he said. “It’s confrontational, but always with the cognizance that reconciliation is possible when there’s an acknowledgment of Palestinian agency and humanity.”
Abuata says the Christian movement for Palestinian rights has grown significantly in the past decade, noting that 10 years ago he wouldn’t have been welcomed into 80 percent of the mainline Christian denominations and churches with which he now coordinates. This year also marks the 10-year anniversary of the publication of the Kairos document, a call by Palestinian Christians to Christians around the world to fight the Israeli occupation. While Christian Zionism has certainly internationalized in recent years, growing in popularity in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, Abuata says the movement countering Christian Zionism has as well. “The trend on the ground is a growing internationalization reflecting on globalized racism through Palestinian lenses,” he said.
Still, Abuata acknowledges the continued challenges. “There are fractures appearing in the Christian Zionist narrative, but there’s still a long way to go,” he said.

Ghislaine Maxwell seen in public for first time since Epstein death







Ghislaine Maxwell seen in public for first time since Epstein death

Socialite has been accused of conspiring with financier to groom girls for sexual abuse
Ghislaine Maxwell was seen at In-N-Out burger in Los Angeles.
 Ghislaine Maxwell was seen at In-N-Out burger in Los Angeles. Photograph: FRIDA/MEGA

Ghislaine Maxwell has been photographed at a restaurant in Los Angeles, the first time she has been seen in public since the death of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The British socialite and heiress has been accused in civil court documents of conspiring with Epstein to recruit and groom underage girls for sexual abuse.
Maxwell, 57, the daughter of the late press baron Robert Maxwell, has repeatedly denied allegations of involvement in a sex-trafficking network run by the financier, who was awaiting trial in a New York prison when he died last Saturday.
She was pictured by the New York Post having a burger, fries and milkshakeat a branch of In-N-Out Burger while reading The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives. The newspaper said she was sitting with her pet dog.
A number of Epstein’s accusers have alleged Maxwell played a central role in arranging the abuse of his victims.
The most recent accusations were contained in more than 2,000 pages of court documents unsealed last week in connection with a civil case that one of Epstein’s accusers, Virginia Giuffre, filed against Maxwell in 2015.
Giuffre has previously accused Maxwell of recruiting her to work as Epstein’s masseuse at the age of 15, when the teenager was a locker-room attendant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in south Florida. When Maxwell accused her of being a liar, Giuffre brought the defamation suit, which was settled shortly before the trial was due to begin in 2017.
In documents unsealed last week, just a few hours before Epstein was found dead in his cell, Giuffre’s lawyers accused Maxwell of “acting as a madam” for the financier, alleging that “multiple witnesses” had testified that Maxwell was responsible for “recruiting, maintaining, harbouring and trafficking girls for Epstein”.
Maxwell has never been criminally charged. Her lawyers have not been responding to requests for comment.
On Wednesday, the technology entrepreneur Scott Borgeson denied suggestions he was in a romantic relationship with Maxwell and that they were living together at his home in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts.
“I am not dating Ghislaine. I’m home alone with my cat,” he told the New York Post.
Asked about the status of their friendship, he said: “I don’t want to comment on that. Would you want to talk about your friends?”
Prior to his death in an apparent suicide, Epstein denied federal charges of sex trafficking involving minors that could have resulted in a 45-year prison sentence.
Geoffrey Berman, the US attorney for the southern district of New York who was overseeing the prosecution against Epstein, said the investigation would continue and hinted at the possibility of co-conspirators being prosecuted.
“To those brave young women who have already come forward, and to the many others who have yet to do so, let me reiterate that we remain committed to standing for you, and our investigation of the conduct charged in the indictment – which included a conspiracy count – remains ongoing,” he said.
----------------------------------------------------------- -------------

My Comment :
One might be well excused to suggest that Maxwell has appeared in public on purpose in this case, while trying to signal / communicate - by book-title, just as Assange seemed to have been doing while being arrested by UK police in the Ecuadorian embassy this spring - to the press and the community at large, that the CIA might have been involved into the Epstein saga.


vrijdag 16 augustus 2019

The myth of Eurabia: how a far-right conspiracy theory went mainstream















The myth of Eurabia: how a far-right conspiracy theory went mainstream


Once an obscure idea confined to the darker corners of the internet, the anti-Islam ideology is now visible in the everyday politics of the west. How did this happen? By 

Fri 16 Aug 2019 

I
n July 2011, a quiet European capital was shaken by a terrorist car bomb, followed by confused reports suggesting many deaths. When the first news of the murders came through, one small group of online commentators reacted immediately, even though the media had cautiously declined to identify the attackers. They knew at once what had happened – and who was to blame.
“This was inevitable,” explained one of the anonymous commenters. And it was just the beginning: “Only a matter of time before other European nations get a taste of their multicultural tolerance that they’ve been cooking for decades.”
“Europe has been infested with venomous parasitic vermin,” explained another. “Anything and everything is fine as long as they rape the natives and destroy the country, which they do,” said a third.
As the news grew worse, the group became more joyful and confident. The car bomb had been followed by reports of a mass shooting at a nearby camp for teenagers. One commenter was “almost crying of happiness” to be proved right about the dangers of Islam. “The massacre at the children’s camp,” another noted, “is a sickening reminder of just how evil and satanic the cult of Islam is.”
A couple of hours after the first reports of the bomb explosion in central Oslo, a few doubts emerged to cloud the picture: “Because the targets in the shooting were all good little leftists, won’t the shooter be played up as a rightwing extremist, whatever his actual motives?” one person asked.
When information emerged to suggest that the attacker might be a “tall Nordic guy”, one of the commenters, who called himself “Fjordman”, realised the true nature of the disaster: “Judging from some of the recent information, it must be treated as a serious possibility that this is actually some Timothy McVeigh, not a Muslim. It is too early to tell. If that is indeed the case … it would practically destroy my country, and make the working conditions for people like myself incredibly difficult for a long time to come, I’m afraid.”
The truth turned out to be worse than Fjordman feared. The massacre in Oslo had not been committed by Muslims. It was the work of a white supremacist, Anders Behring Breivik, who had detonated a bomb in Oslo, killing eight people, and then shot dead 69 others, many of them teenagers, at a youth camp run by Norway’s Labour party. And, according to the manifesto he published online, Breivik had been directly inspired by Gates of Vienna – the blog where all these comments appeared on the day of his massacre. Breivik called the ideology that justified his murders “The Vienna school”, after the blog.
Fjordman, whose real name is Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, now lives in obscurity in provincial Norway. He outed himself as the man behind the pseudonym to a Norwegian tabloid in the weeks following the massacre – but managed to avoid testifying at Breivik’s trial, thanks to the intervention of high-powered lawyers paid for by the Middle East Forum, a rightwing American group that would later sponsor Tommy Robinson – real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – in Britain. Nonetheless, Jensen’s influence on Breivik, however indirect, had been considerable.
Breivik borrowed part of the title of his manifesto, A European Declaration of Independence, from one of Fjordman’s blog posts, and many of the chapters in it were simply reprintings of Fjordman’s postings on various blogs, mostly Gates of Vienna, but also a far-right and passionately anti-EU site called the Brussels Journal.
Gates of Vienna was, and still is, run by Edward “Ned” May, an American computer programmer from Washington DC. It was among the first in a wave of blogs that urged the US to war after the shock of 9/11, and almost certainly the most fanatically anti-Muslim. It takes its name from the siege of Vienna in 1683, when an Ottoman Turkish army was defeated by a Polish-led one. Its essential thesis is that this was only one battle in a long war and that Europe and its civilisation are constantly threatened by a Muslim invasion.
On these varied online forums, the narrative was always the same: a liberal cabal was conspiring with hostile Muslim powers to hand over the decent working people to Islam. This was the animating myth of the bloggers, calling themselves the “counter-jihad”, who congregated at Gates of Vienna and other like-minded sites – and inspired both the violence of Breivik and the message of the racist far-right parties that have transformed European politics in the past decade.
But all of these later conspiracy theories took inspiration from a founding myth of contemporary Islamophobia: an invented plot, known as “Eurabia”, to destroy European civilisation. This is the doctrine that Jensen promoted and Breivik acted on, a hidden underpinning of a movement that has changed the world.
Once an ideology confined to the kookier corners of the internet, the idea of Eurabia is now visible in the everyday politics of the US, Australia and most of Europe: when Trump tweets about stabbings in London and falsely claims that crime in Germany is “way up”, he is invoking the Eurabian myth, taken as fact on Fox News, that European liberals have surrendered their cities to Muslim criminals.
The spread of the belief that elites conspired to push Muslim immigration on their native populations is also the story of a conspiracy theory that was nourished on some of the very first blogs and message boards, started appearing in mainstream discourse after 9/11, and then took on a life of its own, even while the supposed facts behind it were exposed as ridiculous. It is a lesson in the danger of half-truths, which are not only more powerful than truths but often more powerful than lies.

E
urabia is a term coined in the 70s that was resurfaced by Gisèle Littman, an Egyptian-born Jewish woman who fled Cairo for Britain after the Suez crisis, and then moved to Switzerland in 1960 with her English husband. She wrote under the name of Bat Ye’or (Hebrew for “Daughter of the Nile”). In a series of books, originally written in French and published from the 1990s onward, she developed a grand conspiracy theory in which the EU, led by French elites, implemented a secret plan to sell out Europe to the Muslims in exchange for oil.

The original villain of Littman’s story was General Charles de Gaulle. It is difficult for an outsider to understand how De Gaulle, who led the French resistance to the Nazis and was probably the greatest conservative statesman in French history, could be reinvented as the man who betrayed western civilisation for money. But Littman had lived many years in France, and the French far right hated De Gaulle, and indeed tried several times to assassinate him. Not only had De Gaulle fought the Vichy government, he had also admitted defeat in the long and hideously bloody war of Algerian independence – granting an Arab Muslim country its freedom at the expense of the French-Christian settler population, who had to retreat to France (and whose descendants formed the backbone of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front).
Agreeing to Algerian independence was understood by the French far right as a betrayal. De Gaulle had been brought out of retirement and restored to power in 1958 because he was believed to be on the side of the settlers in their war, which was opposed by much of the left. And so, to the far right, the Mediterranean came to seem like the frontline in a long, shifting struggle between rival colonialisms, Christian and Muslim, in which the Muslims had won a great victory in Algeria. Where would their new advance stop?
Littman’s argument, framed by her experience in Egypt (which a French force had invaded, along with the British and Israelis, in 1956), was that Islam imposed a second-class status on all non-Muslims, whom they ruled. This status of “dhimmitude” – a coinage of Littman’s, meaning subjection to Islamic rule on pain of “forced conversion, slavery or death” – was now to be extended to Europe.
According to Littman, her books describe “Europe’s evolution from a Judeo-Christian civilisation, with important post-Enlightenment secular elements, into a post-Judeo-Christian civilisation that is subservient to the ideology of jihad and the Islamic powers that propagate it.”
She saw tentacles of the great conspiracy in committees of blameless tedium and obscurity, such as the Euro-Arab Dialogue, an institution set up by the European Economic Community and the Arab League in the 70s to promote greater discussion between the regions. Her conspiracy theory was dismissed in 2006 by the Israeli historian Robert Wistrich as “the protocols of the elders of Brussels”, but what mattered more was the place he chose to challenge her ideas: a conference in Jerusalem on antisemitism to which she had been invited despite her lack of academic status. September 11 had changed everything for Littman, she told Haaretz after the conference: “In the United States, I am certain that the September 11 attacks woke people up, including the Jewish community that had previously ignored me, because it belongs more to the left.”
She explained to Haaretz the future she saw for Europe. “We are now heading towards a total change in Europe, which will be more and more Islamicised and will become a political satellite of the Arab and Muslim world.”
This was the idea that the Norwegian Jensen was enchanted by, and which, as Fjordman, he transmitted to Anders Breivik.








Marine Le Pen, president of France’s far-right National Rally (formerly National Front) party, applauds the former US presidential adviser Steve Bannon after his speech at the party’s annual congress in March 2018.
 Marine Le Pen, president of France’s far-right National Rally (formerly National Front) party, applauds the former US presidential adviser Steve Bannon (left) after his speech at the party’s annual congress in March 2018. Photograph: Philippe Huguen/AFP/Getty Images

Jensen is unusual among Eurabia believers in that he has actually had some experience of the Muslim world and even speaks Arabic. He is the son of a socialist politician in Norway and studied Arabic in Cairo – his earlier university studies in Bergen had included English (which he writes fluently), Russian, Arabic and Middle Eastern history. In 2000, he had been interviewed by the local paper back in Norway, and spoke enthusiastically about his hosts in Egypt: “Outside the tourist areas, you meet friendly, hospitable, curious and open people who want to get to know you. I have been part of their daily lives. We’ve been invited to their homes, and talked and smoked shisha together.”
That was Jensen’s first encounter with Islam, and he was still in Cairo at the time of the 9/11 attacks. He says he saw then that there were some Muslims who celebrated the slaughter, and he also saw that this wasn’t reported in the Norwegian papers. The next year, he worked for the Norwegian Refugee Council in the disputed city of Hebron in the occupied West Bank. Unusually among Scandinavians who have worked with Palestinians in Israel, he identified with the Israelis. He narrowly escaped a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, at a bar where two of his colleagues had been killed in another attack the previous year. The experience cemented his growing fear and loathing of Islam.
The fact that the Norwegian press took a generally pro-Palestinian line while he and his friends had been the victims of Palestinian terrorism helped to convince Jensen that Islam was an existential threat to European civilisation which the politically correct establishment was wilfully ignoring. Like Littman, he seems not to acknowledge any element of nationalism in Palestinian consciousness: it is all either Arab or Muslim. In fact, the belief that Islam is hostile to national consciousness is quite widely held on the right: the philosopher Roger Scruton brought it up in a controversial speech on nationality in Hungary in 2013, in which he contrasted European Christian nations with Islamic empires.
In 2003, Jensen returned to Norway, where he attempted to make a name for himself as a public intellectual. At first, he was hostile to feminism, accusing feminists of destroying Norwegian manhood. But the focus of his concerns soon switched to Islam. He started writing under the pseudonym “Norwegian Kafir” on an American blog called Little Green Footballs, which loudly and fervently supported the invasion of Iraq. From then on, his writing appeared in English, on American-hosted blogs. There, he hammered into shape the narrative of elites, specially identified with the EU, who are destroying and betraying Europe by the deliberate encouragement of mass immigration.
At this point in time, the Eurabian conspiracy appealed largely to those who had long perceived a conflict between Islam and the Judeo-Christian west – with Israel as a beleaguered and persecuted outpost of western values. These people, largely on the American right, were among the earliest exponents of Eurabia – but as they never ceased to complain, theirs was not an attitude very widely shared in Europe. What would soon supply the emotional force of the fantasy was another set of ideas about global migration, less conspiratorial in their essence, but much more widely accepted among generally apolitical Europeans. These, also, originated in France, where they were known as the “great replacement”.

T
he idea of the great replacement had its origin in a blatantly racist French novel of the 1970s, The Camp of the Saints, in which France is overthrown by an unarmed invasion of starving, sex-crazed Indian refugees when the French army is not prepared to fire on them. The moral of the book is that western civilisation can only be saved by a willingness to slaughter poor brown people. Steve Bannon, among the founders of the rightwing news site Breitbart and a former adviser to President Trump, has referred to it repeatedly.
Throughout the 80s and 90s, the naked racism of The Camp of the Saints kept it largely out of public debate. But the rise of Islam as a global force allowed the question to be recast. If the threatening masses were defined by religion rather than by skin colour, then hating them could be presented as an intellectual commitment rather than a racist one.
And the paranoid did have a large, shadowy half-truth to fall back on. The demographic shrinkage facing Europe is real and undeniable, and it was obvious in the early years of this century, too. So are the much greater birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. In 2002, Russia and Pakistan both had populations of about 145 million; by 2017, Russia’s population was 144 million while Pakistan’s was 200 million.
The next stage in the development of a xenophobic populist worldview was for the two narratives to merge, so that Islam and Muslims became both a conspiracy and a demographic threat.
The 9/11 attacks changed attitudes to Islam in much of Europe and the US. Israel and the US now shared a sense of being under attack from Muslims. Without 9/11, Littman would have remained an obscure crank, and Jensen more obscure still. But the assault on the twin towers unleashed an immense backlash of wounded American pride and nationalism that led to the devastation of two whole countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and countless deaths. It also fuelled a demand for explanations. Theories about the unique malevolence and danger of Islam answered a popular hunger. George W Bush declared at the time that the US had no quarrel with Islam, but many of his compatriots disagreed.
One of the many bad fruits of 9/11 was the new atheist movement, a phenomenon marked by mutual self-praise and undeviating hostility to Islam. Even if the ostensible target of much of the hostility was Christianity, the new atheists tend to consider Islam far worse and more “religious” a religion. The American writer Sam Harris’s breakthrough book The End of Faith from 2004 now reads like Bat Ye’or without the inconvenient scaffolding of easily disproved facts. “We are at war with Islam,” he writes. “It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists … Armed conflict ‘in the defence of Islam’ is a religious obligation for every Muslim man ... Islam, more than any religion humans have ever devised, has the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.”
In the run-up to the Iraq war, and after the invasion, coverage in American newspapers and on television was, to a European eye, jingoistic in the extreme. The possibility of defeat was unthinkable. Nonetheless, a new wave of bloggers began using the term “MSM” for “mainstream media” as a disparaging reference to the large media organisations’ pretended neutrality. One of the earliest and most influential of these was Little Green Footballs, founded and run by Charles Johnson, a Los Angeles-based former session guitarist with an interest in web design. It was typical of the moment that he was an opinionated amateur with no credentials, whose real advantage was that he could build websites at a time when this required some programming skill.

Jensen, commenting on Little Green Footballs as Norwegian Kafir, made it a distribution point for Eurabian ideas. Another was Gates of Vienna itself, run by Ned May under the moniker Baron Bodissey after a sage in the sci-fi novels of Jack Vance. Then there was Jihad Watch, run by the American author Robert Spencer. Both Spencer and his frequent collaborator Pam Geller were banned from the UK in 2013 for making statements likely to foster hatred and violence between communities.
The only European blog of note in this constellation was the fanatically anti-EU site the Brussels Journal, where the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan was a contributor. The Brussels Journal was run by Paul Beliën, a far-right Belgian journalist and author. Jensen was active on all these sites, taking part in discussions in which the Eurabian beliefs gave rise to something that called itself the counter-jihad movement.
Nowadays, when Facebook effortlessly spreads disinformation around the world, it is difficult to recapture the sense of revelation, and of belonging, that once accompanied the discovery of a new blog. The cramped but, to its adherents, strangely comforting thought world of the counter-jihad blogs turned politics into a gigantic online game. Anyone could play and everyone could find in it their inner child: “Some people think I’m weird; some think I am exceptionally intelligent,” Jensen had told a reporter when he was still a student in Cairo.

T
he boundaries between these blogs and the “MSM” they affected to despise were porous. Some writers aimed for a high-minded tone about the dangers of Muslim immigration: the former Financial Times columnist Christopher Caldwell published in 2009 a book, Reflections on a Revolution in Europe, that recapitulates the idea of a slow-moving Muslim barbarian invasion from a position of Olympian disdain: “Immigrants also bring a lot of disorder, penury and crime … Muslim culture is unusually full of messages laying out the practical advantages of procreation … If you walk north across the Piazza Della Repubblica in Turin, you see, mutatis mutandis, what the Romans saw. To the east, two well-preserved Roman towers remain, and so do the walls built to separate citizens from barbarians. Today, in the space of about 60 seconds on foot, you pass from chic shops and wine bars through a lively multiethnic market into one of Europe’s more menacing north African slums.”
Some were less highbrow. In 2004, the Daily Telegraph gave a column to the Canadian prophet of American greatness Mark Steyn, who had originally made his name as a witty critic of musical theatre. Doom and horror was all he saw in Europe’s future. As early as 2002, he said: “I find it easier to be optimistic about the futures of Iraq and Pakistan than, say, Holland or Denmark” – a remark he was still proudly quoting for Telegraph readers in 2005, when Iraq had become a slaughterhouse.
In terms that anticipated Jensen, Breivik and the alleged manifesto of the man charged with the Christchurch massacre, Steyn wrote (and the Telegraph published) this prophecy: “In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography – except through civil war. The Yugoslavs figured that out. In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43% to 31% of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26% to 44%.”








‘Europeans, vote for AfD, so that Europe will never become ‘Eurabia’!’ reads a campaign poster in Berlin for the far-right party during this year’s European elections.
 ‘Europeans, vote for AfD, so that Europe will never become ‘Eurabia’!’ reads a campaign poster in Berlin for the far-right party during this year’s European elections. Photograph: Clemens Bilan/EPA

Compare Steyn in 2005 with the manifesto of Patrick Crusius, who confessed to murdering 22 people in El Paso earlier this month: “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion ... America is rotting from the inside out, and peaceful means to stop this seem to be nearly impossible.”
In 2007, the believers in a counter-jihad began to meet up in the real world. After a preliminary meeting of bloggers, commentators and Danish and Norwegian sympathisers in Copenhagen, attended by Jensen, a conference was arranged by May and the far-right Flemish party Vlaams Belang, in Brussels in 2007. This brought together most of the ideologues of Eurabia, as they attempted to transform it from an idea into a movement. Littman was the keynote speaker. Others present were Geller and Robert Spencer from the US, and Gerard Batten, later briefly the leader of Ukip in Britain. Ted Ekeroth, of the nationalist, rightwing Sweden Democrats, also attended.
As both Ukip and the Sweden Democrats rose to become powerful political forces, anxieties about terrorism were subsumed into much wider anxieties about demography, and about status within the old order. The American anthropologist Scott Atran has carried out extensive research into the mindset of the young men who become Islamic terrorists: the combination of wounded pride with the delight of belonging to a movement which has both global, apocalyptic significance and a living presence in a friendship group is tremendously important in recruiting jihadis. The same dynamic operates among their enemies: Breivik was remarkable chiefly in that he was so solipsistic that he could radicalise himself without the aid of any friends in real life, only those he imagined on the internet. He had at one stage approached his intellectual idol, Jensen, via email, who brushed him off as “boring as a vacuum cleaner salesman”.
You do not have to be a jihadi to feel the tug of these compulsions. The counter-jihadis, just as much as their enemies, believed they were entering an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. This is a century of wounded pride and anxieties about status for almost everyone.

D
espite all this, there were some signs, even before the Breivik killings, that the original Eurabian front would break up. Those who were opposed to immigrants in general began to separate from those who hated Muslims in particular. Johnson, the founder of Little Green Footballs, excommunicated most of his followers in 2010 because of their increasing closeness to parties of western Europe that he regarded as being descended from fascists – the Vlaams Belang in Belgium and the Sweden Democrats, although he also denounced the English Defence League. Johnson was a genuine philosemite, who could not forgive the taint of antisemitism.
The anti-immigrant right had good reasons for separating itself from the anti-Muslim right. If the logic of the “Vienna school” – Jensen, Spencer and Geller, May and Littman – led inexorably to civil war and the righteous slaughter of Muslims and their leftie enablers, then most of the right shrank back from it. Commenters such as Douglas Murray and Caldwell quite genuinely believed that Breivik was insane, and that his actions had no relation to the ideas that he espoused. There may in this have been an element of self-deception, but it is also a testimony to the sort of instinctive, unthinking decency we all need sometimes to rescue us from the consequences of our ideas. It seemed that some kind of pragmatism would prevail.
The hope now seems deceptive. What changed this was above all the election of the US president, Donald Trump, whose then adviser Bannon was a believer in a “brutal, bloody ... global war” against “Islamic fascism”. They showed that there was a huge constituency for racialised hatred and despair and – for them – no real negative consequences, electoral or otherwise, in pandering to it.
Since Breivik’s massacre, his own beliefs have only become more widespread. They have spread into the politics of all European countries. In the campaign for the European elections this May, the German far-right party AfD ran posters showing a naked white woman being pawed by dark-skinned men in Arab headgear. One had stuck his fingers in her unresisting mouth. “Europeans, vote for AfD, so that Europe will never become ‘Eurabia’,” said the caption. Millions of people who have never heard of Bat Ye’or, of Fjordman, or even of Breivik and Bannon, now understand that poster at a glance, and no amount of evidence will shake their certainty. They now believe all politics comes down to the words of one of Trump’s more recent tweets: “The losers all want what you have, don’t give it to them … Be strong & prosper, be weak & die!”
But who, in this situation, are the losers, and who are the strong? Last week, in an apparent attempt to emulate Breivik, a rich, disaffected young Norwegian, Philip Manshaus, shot his way through the entrance gates to a mosque in the upmarket suburb of Oslo where he lived and started firing at the congregation. He was wrestled to the ground by an unarmed 65-year-old Muslim, Mohammed Rafiq, who then held him down, with the help of another man, until the police arrived. On the Gates of Vienna blog, this episode was not deemed worthy of mention. Instead, its devoted readers were told that Muslims had been responsible for a recent outbreak of animal cruelty in Sweden.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Comments :'

1.  Although the author did mention the fundamental demolition of the Eurabia myths by Israeli historian Robert Wistrich, he did fail to mention the - contextually, (ie. because the obvious implication of zionist colonialist propagandist motives behind the frenetic anti-moslim activism of the Littman couple) most crucial - fact, that Gisele Littman-Orebi and her husband David Littman, had been active members of the Mossad at the time of launching their crusade against the islam (and its worshippers).
2.  From the viewpoint of the early inventors (and later developers) of the resilient zionism myth, the spread of a compelling narrative of a (supposedly) mutual enemy together with the west (ie. the judeo-christian west versus the world of Islam) has been crucial to the existence and expansion of the zionist colony called Israel...

3.  After all, from day one, the zionist colony - that has been founded on wholesale terror and ditto deceit - exclusively depends on the massive aid (and massive theft) from their western protectors and the suggestion of a common enemy might have taken care for all the military, diplomatic and economic aid that one can imagine. 


4.   The cynical interaction (often culminating into cooperation) between the extreme-right white supremacists and the extreme-right Jew supremacists does entertain many objectives and one is the spreading of anti-semitism, because the fear generated by anti-semitic actions, paradoxically does assist the zionists in their aim to mobilise even more foreign support.

5.   At the same time it does stimulate the immigration of Jews from their so-called "diaspora countries" towards the zionist colony.

6.   On the other hand the white supremacists do admire the ethnic zionist colony, because it does emulate their ultimate goal of founding a white-ethnic state of their own.