The Islamization of America

Because the problem is not just Dubai Ports World. It isn't even the recent reports that indicate the National Guard has been stretched too thin by the loss of both manpower and equipment to Iraq, or the upcoming release of two "Virginia Jihad" members, or the enrolment at Yale University of a former Taliban spokesman.

It isn't the recent relaxation of security rules on airplanes (knives, scissors and knitting needles allowed on board and fewer bag searches at airports), and the continuing lack of security measures at major train stations throughout the country. It's not even the fact that Dubai pulled out of the deal only when faced with an in-depth investigation and at the request of the President (from whom, one can be certain, alternative promises were made in exchange).

In February, I attended a conference in the Netherlands featuring experts on the concepts of dhimmitude, a word based on the Arabic word "dhimmi," or "protected," and Eurabia, a word created by scholar Bat Ye'or to describe a Euro-Arab solidarity that is leading gradually (though ever faster) to the Islamization of our European friends and allies.

In essence, Europeans, says Ye'or, have acquiesced to the powers and demands of the Arab world, cooperating and collaborating in areas of foreign policy, economy, and culture, in return for which Europe will be – in principle – safe from the violent conquest by Islam.

If this sounds like crazy conspiracy theory, in fact, it isn't really all that different from the politics we're used to in America. Countries that behave according to Western, Euro-American standards can count on Euro-American investment and military support; those who do not can expect repercussions. The difference here is simply one of a marriage between church and state: for Islamic nations, they are one and the same. Follow their religion, submit to their socio-economic demands, and their governments will not persecute or attack.

Consider, too, the central premise of Bat Ye'or's argument: that according to the principles of jihad, non-Muslims must be brought to convert – preferably through peaceable means, but if necessary, through violence.

In an interview with John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, the Egyptian born Bat Ye'or explains:

The words "put no obstacle to the spread of Islam in their countries" explain, for instance, the establishment of Saudi-run mosques throughout Europe (the largest of which is based in Rotterdam – home to Europe's major port) and of Saudi-owned schools and bookstores where anti-Western texts are taught and sold, where one finds books like The Muslim Way, a bestseller in the Dutch Muslim community that advises its readers that it is often necessary to beat women, that women are obliged to submit to their husbands' sexual desires on demand, and that homosexuals should be burned, stoned, or thrown from the highest available building, head first.

In exchange for this openness, Europe receives Arab oil, Arab investment, and a "truce" of sorts by which, as Muslims become the majority in many countries (which some believe could take place within decades), Jews and Christians will be safe to practice their religions, just as they were permitted to do – as dhimmis – in the 7th century, when, writes Bat Ye'or, "the infidel population had to recognize Islamic ownership on their land, submit to Islamic (i.e. Sharia) law, and accept payment of the poll tax. In return they were granted the effective protection of Islamic law, which gave them security, limited religious rights, and self administration in religious and civil law." On her web site (dhimmitude.org) she further notes, "Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognized only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."

Just this: Influence and investment in the USA by Muslim nations – particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE – not only continues, but is escalating, invading our institutions with the $20 million grant to Harvard University by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal for the establishment of an Islamic Studies program (which can surely be expected to teach the kinds of things that similarly-sponsored schools teach in Europe); with the purchase last fall by Dubai's crown prince Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of 230 Park Avenue, the building above New York's Grand Central Station; with the takeover by another Dubai firm, Dubai Holdings, of the Doncasters Group, a UK-based manufacturer of parts for military aircraft, tanks, and petrochemical markets with plants throughout the US and Europe.

Doncasters' – now Dubai Holding's – biggest clients? Boeing, Honeywell, Siemens, and General Electric. (It is perhaps worth noting that, as with the Dubai Ports World transactions, many of those companies agreeing to be purchased are not only European, but that of our closest European ally: Great Britain. And to quote a piece in Al Bayan, a government run UAE newspaper as cited by the Anti-Defamation League: "…But who planted the biggest and the most dangerous virus in the region? Isn't it Britain and Europe who planted the Israeli virus? Isn't America protecting and injecting this virus in every aspect of life so it can penetrate and become monstrous?"). Yet when questioned on these transactions, their defenders are quick to pull the "racism" card, arguing that we don't want to anger our "friends" in the United Arab Emirates, who have, they argue, supported and assisted some of America's anti-terror efforts. (That they have supported and assisted some of political Islam's most vicious terrorists in their own effort is, apparently, not the point.)

In other words, the deal is struck: they'll be nice to us as long as we let them take over our ports, our real estate, our train stations (the ones lacking security systems), our institutions. If we refuse them, they may – so the argument goes – get angry, pack up their toys and go home, and then come back to bomb us in the morning.

Ye'or defines the term, in fact, in exactly this way, noting in her interview with Whitehead that the concept "represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability."

If you haven't heard of Dubai Holdings, the company that just purchased Doncasters while you weren't looking, you might want to find out more. They also have a $1 billion share of Daimler/Chrysler, makers of such commonly used US and European military equipment as ground transport vehicles and of such vital military weapons as missiles. (And of course, if it is true that, as some have suggested, the UAE maintains friendly relations with the USA in part because of its need to purchase our arms, well, they seem to be doing away with that necessity quite handily.) Moreover, Doncasters - now Dubai Holding – maintains close connections with General Electric – the company that not only produces turbine engines for Boeing (among others) but, as it announces proudly on its web site, "Whether you're with a federal, state or local government agency, GE offers innovative technologies to help make your world safer. GE can integrate the latest advancements with your existing equipment and IT systems so you can increase security at embassies, borders, military installations, water treatment plants and other critical public infrastructure. Plus these integrated systems capture valuable data you can use to improve procedures, investigate events and prevent others from happening at all."

In the face of all this, the cancellation of the Dubai Ports World deal (which now seems possibly not to have been cancelled after all) doesn't seem to me to mean that much.

Okay, I know that some people do not see this as a threat. They argue that the UAE has been an ally to the US. They maintain that in a globalized economy, international exchanges of businesses are not only likely but desirable, that there should be no difference between selling a company to the UK and selling the same business to the Arab world - even to countries which have taken a pronounced, militant stance against Israel, whose anti-Semitic leanings and support of Hamas and of the Taliban are well-documented, countries that have served as financial centers for terrorists, countries that have, in fact, harbored the very terrorists who killed thousands on our own shores.

(Whether the connections between some of these companies and friends, members, and family of the Bush Administration are relevant here is another question; stay tuned for Part Two of this investigation.)

Some defense contractors have told me global war by Islamic extremists is becoming a business. Tactics and procedures are being tested in Sri Lanka, bombs are tested in Indonesia, and suddenly they turn up in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the UAE, they say, knows that military defense is a growth business in the United States these days.

Speaking not of the UAE, but of their Saudi neighbors, Ibn Warraq, the esteemed author of Leaving Islam and Why I Am Not A Muslim pointed out at the Hague conference, "In August, 2002, the Rand Corporation published a report that described Saudi Arabia as ' the kernel of evil, the prime mover, the most dangerous opponent."

The report went on explain that "Saudi Arabia supports our enemies and attacks our allies. The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to foot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader'. And yet little seems to have changed in the West's behavior towards a regime that has financed terrorism, funnelled millions into madrassas that preach more anti-Western hatred, has corrupted institutions of higher education like Harvard and Georgetown University, has bought the favours of Western politicians and seeks to destroy Western civilisation at every turn. We know the reason: oil. But until we address the question of Saudi Arabia and its influence on life in the West we shall have no progress, no rest."

Is the UAE really all that different? Is that a chance we want to take with our military equipment, our clean water systems, our embassies, our railways, our ports?

Author and scholar Robert Spencer may make you wonder. Asked to define dhimmitude in his own words, he replied in an e-mail: It is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Koran's command that they "feel themselves subdued." (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race."

— Abigail R. Esman is an award-winning author-journalist who divides her time between New York and The Netherlands. In addition to her column in World Defense Review, her work has appeared in Foreign Policy, Salon.com, Esquire, Vogue, Glamour, Town & Country, The Christian Science Monitor, The New Republic and many others. She is currently working on a book about Muslim extremism and democracy in the West.

In one of his most oft-quoted speeches, delivered shortly after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush declared, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." (George Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington, DC – press release from the Press Secretary to the President, September 20, 2001).

So why, then, offer American ports, military equipment, security systems, and access to water treatment facilities to countries known to have ties to the Taliban, and to have financial connections in with the 9/11 hijackers? Why court an investor whose friendship with America's most-wanted "Most Wanted" is well-documented, even in the Pentagon? Once, ironically enough, when I was writing about an Islamic extremist group, a journalist colleague advised me, "follow the money." It is an old and useful rule. And so seeking an explanation for the Dubai Ports and Dubai Holdings/Doncasters deals, as well as for other puzzling recent investments and activities, I have tried to do just that.

Let me say from the outset that the information here is, as they say, "for illustration purposes only." Any conclusions to be drawn from it are your own. Also, there are no straight lines. What there is, is a complex web, highlighted by few odd mysteries and some disturbingly unanswered questions.

To begin, a political update for those who may have missed it, and which I learned about too late to include in Part I of this report: In a February 25, 2006 article by Niles Lathem, "Qaeda Claim: We 'Infiltrated' UAE Government" the New York Post disclosed the contents of a June, 2002 message from Al Qaeda to the government of the UAE that stated, "You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies, along with other agencies that should not be mentioned." (Apparently the UAE isn't all that good at security after all.)

Surprising as this may seem, it really shouldn't be. Members of the UAE ruling family are known to have socialized frequently with bin Laden before the Al Qaeda leader went into hiding (and for all anyone knows, even since): A military document submitted to the 9/11 Commission describes a February, 1999 hunting trip members of the UAE Royal Family took with Osama bin Laden. According to the document, "the CIA received reports that bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited with the emirates." In fact, having pinpointed the Al Qaeda leader at the camp, the US chose nonetheless to refrain from attacking him for fear that, in the words of former CIA Director George Tenet as cited in the 9/11 Commission Report document, "you might have wiped out half the royal family of the UAE in the process."

But Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, now ruler of Dubai, is not only known for having joined Osama bin Laden on hunting trips. Media reports such as a recent article by Joe Conason in Salon.com, "Business As Usual" (February 24, 2006), have also confirmed the Sheikh's friendly ties to Neil Bush, the President's younger brother, in whose educational project, Ignite!, he has invested an unknown (but presumably sizable) sum. According to the Salon.com story, "In October, 2001, only a month after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, Neil Bush showed up in Dubai ... to meet with [then-] Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum. While peddling the products of Ignite!, his educational software company, Bush was feted as the guest of honor at a gala dinner for a charitable foundation, also hosted by the crown prince."

Whether this was a personal investment or not is unclear from the Salon report, but in general, the Sheikh's financial dealings are handled by the Dubai Investment Group, a part of Dubai Holdings, the company set to purchase Doncasters – the company, you may remember supplies parts for American military equipment.

Then there is Saudi Arabia, and the investment and largess of its Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, which includes the $20 million gifts to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for the creation of Islamic Studies centers *; $500,000 to the George H.W. Bush Scholarship fund at the Phillips Academy in Massachusetts; and – according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) – $27 million to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers Prince Alwaleed, named one of the world's five richest men by Forbes, further holds some $800 million in Citigroup according to a September 25, 1995 article in BusinessWeek.

Additionally, reports The Nation in an April 2002 article by Tim Shorrock, "Crony Capitalism Goes Global", the Carlyle Group – a corporation whose advisors include former President George H.W. Bush and various Boeing executives – until recently, included a company by the name of CSX World Terminals, which it sold to Dubai Ports World in 2005. (Is it relevant that the Prince himself owns a Boeing or two? Probably not.)

So here are our two players: Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid, two extraordinarily wealthy men with purported ties to the Bush family and investments – financial, social, and political – in Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and the families of suicide bombers.

And here is how the rest of their investments shape up: Numbered among Prince Alwaleed's holdings, as cited in the Honolulu Advertiser, and others, are Amazon.com, Walt Disney, AT&T, Ford Motor Company, Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, and New York's Plaza Hotel (which he sold to Israeli investors Elad Properties for $675 million in 2004; he is now reportedly negotiating to repurchase several of the units there). However, most of the Saudi prince's financial dealings are shrouded in secrecy.

For the Sheikh, meetings and negotiations beyond Neil Bush's Ignite! (which The Washington Post has reported was funded in part by "businessmen from Taiwan, Japan, Kuwait, the British Virgin Islands and the United Arab Emirates [italics mine]") and Doncasters (whose partnership with General Electric is crucial – and I'll come back to that, as well) include, according to Dubai Holdings' own websites and Forbes magazine, the Carlyle Group; General Electric; Daimler-Chrysler, New York's Essex House Hotel – just to name a few.

What emerges is a portfolio of holdings in (mostly American) hotels; U.S. and European tourist attractions; residential real estate with some media, banking, and retail thrown in, all alongside the what seems to be financial and political support for suicide bombers and the Taliban (warmly recognized by the UAE as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan until U.S. pressure forced them to cut ties in September, 2001). And if all goes well for Dubai, suppliers of US military equipment – Doncasters and its alliances with Boeing, Daimler and GE – will soon be added to the mix.

Let me say this again. The man who sent $27 million in support of suicide bombers – terrorists – ("if you support the terrorists, you are as guilty as the terrorists") also now funds Islamic Studies programs at Harvard – one of the greatest institutions of higher learning in the world – and at a somewhat lesser institution (not, say, Cornell or Princeton or Yale) that just happens to be located in Washington, D.C. And Osama bin Laden's favored hunting companion, described by House Democrats as a defender and economic supporter of Hamas (according to The Raw Story), owns, among other things, the building above one of the busiest and most vulnerable commuter rail stations and landmarks in America.

So back to the original question: Why? Why would the Bush administration overlook these connections? Part of the answer has been suggested above, as well as by others such as Dave Gibson who noted in The American Daily: "Recently, the Bush administration named David Sanborn the new administrator of the Transportation Department's Maritime Administration. Until a few weeks ago, Sanborn was Dubai Ports World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America. The government panel, which approved the Dubai deal, known as the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, is chaired by Treasury Secretary John Snow. Before accepting the cabinet post, Snow was chairman of CSX Railroad. Shortly after Snow joined the Bush White House," Gibson adds, CSX – by now owned by Carlyle "sold their international ports contracts to Dubai Ports World for over $1 billion. Of course, Snow and Sanborn both claim to have no prior knowledge of either deal."

Other explanations are a bit more complicated, including, according to Joe Conason's Salon.com story, a $100 million investment into the Carlyle Group from Dubai Investment, AKA Dubai Holdings – that company which, again, represents Sheikh Rashid, the man who wants to buy Doncasters and, as noted above, invests already in GE (which partners with Doncasters), supported Neil Bush's Ignite! and, yes, hangs out with Osama bin Laden. General Electric, for its part, maintains ties not only with the Sheikh but with Carlyle and the Bush family and the Administration: Bush courted former CEO Jack Welch for a cabinet position in his first term, according to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), which states that the President "sent members of his administration to lobby the European Union in support of GE's proposed merger with Honeywell, which the EU ultimately rejected." (See The Center for Public Integrity.) But Doncasters works with GE and with Honeywell, and Sheikh Rashid is already a major player at GE. The deal could, in other words, further work in favor of the company the CPI claims spent $31 million lobbying the US Congress in 2001 and 2002.

As for the Helmsley Building, that particular transaction, according to The Real Deal, was handled by the Bass brothers, Lee and Robert, whose family gifts to Bush's gubernatorial races are listed by Texans for Public Justice in a June 21, 2999 statement as having exceeded $200,000. Lee Bass, who partners with his brother in managing the family's Texas-based oil business, is also listed by the TPJ as a proud member of the Bush Pioneers, individuals who raised at least $100,000 for the Bush Presidential campaigns.

Then there's Prince Alwaleed, whose investments are, quite frankly, alarming. Like his UAE investment rival, the prince appears to have befriended Neil Bush (the moment was captured in a photograph and an announcement on the prince's web portal. And when the Prince made his first major stock purchase of shares in Citicorp, it was the Carlyle Group – not exactly known as a financial advisor – who guided him. But as The Economist notes in "The Mystery of the World's Second-Richest Businessman", most of Alwaleed's investments have fallen flat: His hotel purchases are not expected to produce earnings other than capital gains, and the prince does not appear to be interested in selling. (And in the case of the Plaza, he's been busy trying to buy back what he already sold, the New York Daily News said last fall.

Planet Hollywood, of course, was a bust. And even his Citicorp purchase, The Economist reports, proved problematic: The Feds failed to approve his original bid for a 14.9 percent stake in the company after pursuing a 14-month investigation, required for any investor seeking to acquire a share of more than ten-percent in a US bank. (Ultimately, Alwaleed scaled back his plans, purchasing a mere – and easier – ten-percent stake.) And yet the Fed would not explain why the young prince failed to win approval.

Well, that was in 1991. Maybe it's time now to open that Federal Reserve report. Because here's the other thing The Economist found in 1999: The prince's numbers don't add up.

"The prince estimates that his investment income was $500 million last year," The Economist reported. "So his remaining assets, worth only $1.5 billion, just over a tenth of the total, earned $277 million, over half of his income." "Moreover," the report continues, "roughly $550 million worth of [his] private Saudi assets" produce no income at all. What does that mean? According to The Economist, "The inescapable conclusion is that the estimates the prince has given to The Economist and several other publications is wrong. Either the prince has a valuable and unrevealed source of income, or his income is much less than $500 million."

"With us or with the terrorists." A lot of people laughed at the President when he made that remark.

NOTE: This opinion piece is not owned by World Defense Review, and WDR accepts no responsibility whatsoever for the accuracy or innacuracy of the content of this or any other story published on this website. Copyright and all rights for this story (and all other stories by Abigail R. Esman) are held by Abigail R. Esman.

This is an important read. I read the book Infiltration a few months ago and the gains Muslims have made into key institutions in this country is not a good sign of things to come. Think it can't happen here what's happened in France? Think again. We've become too PC for our own good, imo.

And the author of Eurabia, who is quoted in this article, explains why Europe has cozied up to Muslims beautifully in her book. From reviews of the book:
Bat Ye'or is the world's preeminent historian of Islam, jihad and dhimmitude--the reduced state of non-Muslim peoples living under Islamic rule. Here, she has masterfully portrayed the means by which the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) unfolded over the past 30-plus years, and how that process relates to the World War II Axis--as well as the historical, 1,400-year jihad.

"There are three forms of jihad," says Bat Ye'or today, "the military jihad, the economic jihad and the cultural jihad." The EAD between the European Union and the Arab League has been a means of spreading the economic and cultural jihads from the Middle East to Europe.

The process outlined here began with Charles DeGualle's 1967 pronouncement that henceforward, France would assume a pro-Arab policy. In 1971, France began selling arms to Qaddafi, a step from which the EAD flowed as naturally as it did from DeGualle's policy initiative.

Another factor, according to Bat Ye'or, was the French desire to regain a leading role in European history; Georges Pompidou furthered the process in October 1973, following the Syrian and Egyptian Yom Kippur war with Israel.

At that time, the Arab world imposed an oil embargo on Denmark, Holland and the U.S., cut oil production and began to raise oil prices by five percent a month. These new global geopolitics terrified the leaders of Germany and France.

Before it agreed to establish the EAD, the Arab League had demanded that Europe establish pro-Arab and anti-American policies in all their united political, cultural and economic endeavors. The oil embargo was the catalyst which finally moved the European Economic Community to action. Now, writes Bat Ye'or, EEC ministers enacted resolutions that met the Arab demands, and which at the same time reversed the true intent of United Nations Resolution 242. Only then was the Arab oil embargo to Europe lifted.

Americans should understand that Eurabia's contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.

The author points out that Europeans sought to align themselves with the Muslim world for two major reasons - (1) To form a counterbalance to USA influence, and (2) To assure the flow of oil and the availability of Muslim markets for European goods.

In order to initiate this process, the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) was formalized. This agreement was essentially an alliance that would quickly prove to be anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic, anti-American, and anti-Christian.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083864077X/qid=1145279166/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9151592-9353711?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.