In fact, there is no crisis at all.
Merkel has simply fulfilled a contract that was in the works for some time now.
The EU has worked on this since the early 70's
Google MEDEA: European Institute for Research on Euro-Arab Cooperation (http://www.euromesco.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=5&id=1414&Itemid=39&lang=en)
This came after the 1973 Arab Israeli war when the OPEC imposed an oil embargo.
The EU then made a deal with the Arabs to secure the oil supply.
The mass Muslim immigration was part of the deal.
Legacy of 1973 Arab-Israeli war reverberates 40 years on (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24402464)
QuoteFuel shortages
Arab oil exporters who dominated the global energy market at the time decided to punish the West for backing Israel by using what it called ''The Oil Weapon".
Prices were suddenly hiked and output was cut.
There were fuel shortages, a stock market crash and a global economic slowdown whose effects were felt for years. The 55 mph speed limit on some federal roads in the United States dates from the period when desperate attempts were made to save fuel.
Europe and the United States began cultivating alternative oil suppliers and thinking about alternative energy and fuel saving. The death knell was sounded for the gas-guzzling car.
French ex-President Charles de Gaulle is the founding father of Eurabia (https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/french-ex-president-charles-de-gaulle-is-the-founding-father-of-eurabia/)
QuoteWhere does this mess come from? Who is responsible for all of this? Who created this insanity that is now our Muslim problems, our biggest threat to our future and existence, the cause of vicious crimes, import of medieval standards, economic strains and decline, the mess that Europe is in today?
The whole problem originates from Europe’s Arab headquarters: France.
France with the backing of the EU Commission. And this is where aggressive lawsuits need to be pointed. The MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation and other meddling organizations need to be shut-down. And we need to reverse policies and decisions to pre-PAEAC and before the EU gave permission for Arab infiltration into our countries, where even the horrid and violent Arab history was re-written and glorified to our children, without any accuracies at all.
During a November 27, 1967 press conference, Charles de Gaulle stated openly that French cooperation with the Arab world had become “the fundamental basis of our foreign policy.†Five years later in Paris, July 1974, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was created, under the Euro-Arab Dialogue rubric.
The Euro-Arab political agenda constructed a common foreign policy. France was the driving force in this unification, which had already been envisaged by General de Gaulle’s inner circle and Arab politicians.
* The Arab states demanded from Europe European pressure on the United States to align with their Arab policy and demonization of Israel as a threat to world peace, as well as measures favorable to Arab immigration and dissemination of Islamic culture in Europe.
* Up to 1973 the Palestinians had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist.
* While Charles de Gaulle imported millions of Arabs into Europe and bent backwards on their demands he didn’t make a single demand on Arabia for the same equality and rights to be issued to non-Muslims or Europeans on Arabian soil.
* The Arab political agenda also demanded that our educational materials change to a pro-Palestinian one, and a new but inaccurate depiction of Arab history as one of victims (of crusaders and Israel), scientists, innovators and grandeur which was contrary to historical facts. The root of Islam originates from the bedouin’s who were illiterate desert dwellers and frequently responsible for highway robberies, and not scientists and innovators. The crusaders fought against the Caliphates to defend their own land, not to conquer Arab land.
QuoteThese agreements could not be set forth in written documents and treaties due to their politically sensitive and fundamentally undemocratic nature. The European leaders thus carefully chose to call their ideas “dialogue.†All meetings, committees and working groups included representatives from European Community nations and the European Council along with members from Arab countries and the Arab League. Proceedings and decisions took place in closed sessions. No official minutes were recorded.
The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) is a political, economic and cultural institution designed to ensure perfect cohesion between Europeans and Arabs. Its structure was set up at conferences in Copenhagen (15 December 1973), and Paris (31 July 1974). The principal agent of this policy is the European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, founded in 1974. The other principal organs of The Dialogue are the MEDEA Institute and the European Institute of Research on Mediterranean and Euro-Arab Cooperation, created in 1995 with the backing of the European Commission.
In an interview with Jamie Glazov of Frontpage Magazine, Bat Ye’or explained how “in domestic policy, the EAD established a close cooperation between the Arab and European media television, radio, journalists, publishing houses, academia, cultural centers, school textbooks, student and youth associations, tourism. Church interfaith dialogues were determinant in the development of this policy. Eurabia is therefore this strong Euro-Arab network of associations â€" a comprehensive symbiosis with cooperation and partnership on policy, economy, demography and culture.â€
Eurabia’s driving force, the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation, was created in Paris in 1974. It now has over six hundred members â€" from all major European political parties â€" active in their own national parliaments, as well as in the European parliament. France continues to be the key protagonist of this association.
A wide-ranging policy was sketched out. It entailed a symbiosis of Europe with the Muslim Arab countries that would endow Europe â€" and especially France, the project’s prime mover â€" with a weight and a prestige to rival that of the United States. This policy was undertaken quite discreetly, and well outside of official treaties, using the innocent-sounding name of the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The organization functioned under the auspices of European government ministers, working in close association with their Arab counterparts, and with the representatives of the European Commission and the Arab League.
The goal was the creation of a pan-Mediterranean entity, permitting the free circulation both of men and of goods.
This book explains in detail what happened: Eurabia The Euro-Arab Axis (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eurabia-Euro-Arab-Axis-Bat-Yeor-ebook/dp/B004FN2C40/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1454567446&sr=8-1&keywords=bat+yeor+eurabia)[/quote]
Given DeGaulle's negative relationship with the Algeria crisis ... this seems too weird to be true (of him). Maybe someone else promoted it. Or is this simply anti-French rhetoric? The French imported low cost labor from W Africa, for the same reasons Spain imported workers from Morocco, and Germany imported workers from Turkey. Are you saying that Europe is a slave of Arabia, since 1973?
The loss of Algeria, Indochina was a blow for de Gaulle, and he still wanted something big to replace lost dreams. Eurabia was just the ticket for him.
There is the www to find out for yourself.
Quote from: pr126 on February 05, 2016, 07:17:59 AM
The loss of Algeria, Indochina was a blow for de Gaulle, and he still wanted something big to replace lost dreams. Eurabia was just the ticket for him.
Unless you knew him personally, this is just like saying that JFK wanted to nuke Castro but was too busy laying women.
So when are you going to do the British thing, draft all the young men, including immigrants, and send them to China etc to be ... wasted? This isn't just an immigrant problem, and worse for Europe since y'all don't want to employ young men anyway.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2016, 07:20:09 AM
Unless you knew him personally, this is just like saying that JFK wanted to nuke Castro but was too busy laying women.
So when are you going to do the British thing, draft all the young men, including immigrants, and send them to China etc to be ... wasted? This isn't just an immigrant problem, and worse for Europe since y'all don't want to employ young men anyway.
Look, don't take my word for it.
You have the Internet, do your own research, that is if you are really interested.
I gave my version (opinion) with links. Take it or leave it.
And stop the silly talk. It does not add to the discussion.
Thanks .
Quote* Up to 1973 the Palestinians had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist.
The idea of split Arab/Jewish states in that part of the world had been around for more than 20 years prior to 1973. This map was drawn up in 1947.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/UN_Palestine_Partition_Versions_1947.jpg)
Yes. Israel was formed 1948.
But we are talking about the Euro / Arab "dialog".
The thread is about the reason for the mass invasion of Europe by Muslims.
The statement you quoted said that prior to 73 "The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." That statement is not true. The talk prior to the formation of Israel in 1948 had centered around both a Jewish and an Arab state. I don't know that if both an Arab and a Jewish state had happened we would have gotten a different result from what we see today, but claims there was no concept of a Palestinian nation at the time are attempts to support an agenda by revising history.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 05, 2016, 08:28:10 AM
The statement you quoted said that prior to 73 "The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." That statement is not true. The talk prior to the formation of Israel in 1948 had centered around both a Jewish and an Arab state. I don't know that if both an Arab and a Jewish state had happened we would have gotten a different result from what we see today, but claims there was no concept of a Palestinian nation at the time are attempts to support an agenda by revising history.
There was no country, nation, state, government, borders, currency called Palestine. Ever.
The whole idea was created by Arafat after the 1967 war and the propaganda has endured ever since.
Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.
The area called Palestine was a British mandate, taken from the Turks after WWI. It was not a state with recognized government, borders, currency, or whatever needed that makes a sovereign state.
There was and still is an Arab state, called Jordan, or back then Transjordan.
After a half a century of propaganda, lies and misinformation by the world the truth is no longer accepted, no matter how much evidence there is.
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/foundation-state-israel
http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/History/Pages/Facts%20about%20Israel-%20History.aspx
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/ishisttoc.html
Anyway, all this is history, and while relevant, the thread is about Europe at the present, and how it was engineered to become what it is today.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.†- George Orwell
Once again the statement you quoted said that prior to the 70s "The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." is bullshit. You are correct that there hadn't ever been a state called Palestine, but the idea that there should be an Arab state in that part of the world dates to at least 1947.
QuoteThe United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was created on 15 May 1947in response to a United Kingdom government request that the General Assembly "make recommendations under article 10 of the Charter, concerning the future government of Palestine".
QuoteThe Report of the Committee dated 3 September 1947 supported the termination of the British mandate in Palestine. It contained a majority proposal for a Plan of Partition into two independent states with Economic Union (CHAPTER VI) and a minority proposal for a Plan for one Federal union with Jerusalem as its capital (CHAPTER VII). On 29 November 1947 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, based on the UNSCOP majority plan (with only slight modifications to the proposed recommendations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine
The UN recommended a two state solution, one Arab the other Jewish, to what was referred to as the Palestinian question decades before the 70s. The concept of a Palestinian state prior to the 70s is not propaganda created in the 67 War by Arafat. It is well documented historical fact. Attempts to write this fact out of history in an attempt to delegitimize the claims to the lands of the people that had lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years is an attempt to revise history. While everyone is entitled to their own opinion they are not entitled to their own made up facts in support of that opinion.
QuoteBetween Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of ONE people, the Arab nation. Look, I have family members with Palestinian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Syrian citizenship. We are ONE people. Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel and for Arab unity.
A separate Palestinian entity needs to fight for the national interest in the then remaining occupied territories. The Jordanian government cannot speak for Palestinians in Israel, Lebanon or Syria. Jordan is a state with specific borders. It cannot lay claim on - for instance - Haifa or Jaffa, while I AM entitled to Haifa, Jaffa, Jerusalem and Beersheba. Jordan can only speak for Jordanians and the Palestinians in Jordan. The Palestinian state would be entitled to represent all Palestinians in the Arab world en elsewhere. Once we have accomplished all of our rights in all of Palestine, we shouldn't postpone the unification of Jordan and Palestine for one second.
-- Zuheir Mohsen, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen) Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member, quoted in March 31, 1977 article in the Dutch newspaper Trout -
Quote from: pr126 on February 05, 2016, 07:38:30 AM
Look, don't take my word for it.
You have the Internet, do your own research, that is if you are really interested.
I gave my version (opinion) with links. Take it or leave it.
And stop the silly talk. It does not add to the discussion.
Thanks .
I don't think that returning to 19th century British Imperialism ... is silly talk. I am quite serious, Mr Kipling. A good first step would be to shanghai all your unemployed people into the British Navy. Today you can not only make boys into men, you can make girls into men. And don't forget to make all the colonized folks pay for it ... Britain isn't supposed to pay for it. What kind of research do I need ... the British Empire has been a total #&#^#^ shit since 1914. You being older, I don't think they will take you ;-)
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 05, 2016, 08:28:10 AM
The statement you quoted said that prior to 73 "The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." That statement is not true. The talk prior to the formation of Israel in 1948 had centered around both a Jewish and an Arab state. I don't know that if both an Arab and a Jewish state had happened we would have gotten a different result from what we see today, but claims there was no concept of a Palestinian nation at the time are attempts to support an agenda by revising history.
Irrelevant. The Israelis are one street gang (see Likud) and the Palestinians are another street gang (see Hamas). One has nukes, the other does not. Just think of West Side Story ... with nukes. Gangs of NYC or gangs of Near East ... don't need no stinkin' badges.
Quote from: pr126 on February 05, 2016, 12:49:49 PM
-- Zuheir Mohsen, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuheir_Mohsen) Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member, quoted in March 31, 1977 article in the Dutch newspaper Trout -
So you have a Palestine Arab who was advocating Pan-Arabism in the 1970's. Pan-Arabism was a movement with roots in the late 19th century that reached it's peak of popularity in the 1960s and 70s. Is this supposed to support the claim that there was no concept of a Palestinian state prior to the 1970s? If so, how?
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2016, 01:26:20 PM
Irrelevant. The Israelis are one street gang (see Likud) and the Palestinians are another street gang (see Hamas). One has nukes, the other does not. Just think of West Side Story ... with nukes. Gangs of NYC or gangs of Near East ... don't need no stinkin' badges.
I agree that your statement is irrelevant. Whether or not the Israelis and Palestinians are street gangs is irrelevant to when the idea of a Palestinian state was first floated.
Are you thinking of a sovereign autonomous state? A country?
Like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc? then no, Palestine is not like this.
For now, it is called the The Palestinian Territories. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_territories)
They have been offered to become a state, and rejected it. Why? Because they want Israel as well.
But the people there are all Arabs originated from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.
They became "Palestinians" after the 6 Day war.
Yasser Arafat, who was an Egyptian, suddenly became a Palestinian.
The West Bank was Annexed by Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was controlled by Egypt in the past.
Again from your OP. "Up to 1973 the Palestinians had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." It doesn't matter if you call it a state, nation or territory. It doesn't matter what it is now or was in the past. The concept of an autonomous Palestinian whatever was formally expressed decades before the 1970s.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 05, 2016, 01:42:50 PM
I agree that your statement is irrelevant. Whether or not the Israelis and Palestinians are street gangs is irrelevant to when the idea of a Palestinian state was first floated.
I would support Britain conquering the Middle East, and kicking the Israelis and Palestinians out ... maybe Germany would take them ;-) Any nations claims for statehood ... are thuggery. Be the biggest thug, or be someone's bitch. Or wait for the UN to save you ... bwahaha.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 05, 2016, 02:49:38 PM
Again from your OP. "Up to 1973 the Palestinians had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." It doesn't matter if you call it a state, nation or territory. It doesn't matter what it is now or was in the past. The concept of an autonomous Palestinian whatever was formally expressed decades before the 1970s.
Get it accurate though ... in a way, both of you are wrong. There were centrifugal political forces in the Ottoman Empire in 1900. The Young Turks were going to deal with this, by killing all the Armenians, Greeks, Jews and Arabs. This created movements (most famously in the Hejaz) to free themselves from eventual Turkish genocide. The British helped the Arabs fight the Turks, so they were saved. The Armenians and Greeks didn't run fast enough, but the Greeks were near the Aegean, just like the current Arab refugees, and got a boat lift. The Jews understood that they would be exterminated by the Turks, and repressed by the victorious Arabs ... so they sided with the Entente (normally they would have sided with the Turks, but were led by the eventual founder of Likud). So there could have been, a free Palestine circa 1914-1920 if the Turks and Entente would have allowed it. Anglo-French colonialism prevailed however, screwing the Turks, the Arabs, the Kurds, and the Jews. So yes, technically there would have been a Muslim Palestine-Jordan in 1919. Just as there was supposed to be a Muslim Kurdistan in 1919. There was supposed to be a Muslim Syria-Lebanon too.
Israeli myth and Arab myth both ignore the facts. If Palestine-Jordan had been powerful enough to kick out the British in 1919 ... the Balfour Declaration would have been moot. At that point the number of Jewish immigrants was insignificant. But the British colonizers chose to play Arab against Jew and Cis-Jordan against Trans-Jordan. That and the Rothschilds were involved, long before 1914.
So no, nobody has ownership of any land, except they can use force to keep it. There are no property rights, anywhere.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on February 05, 2016, 02:49:38 PM
Again from your OP. "Up to 1973 the Palestinians had been known only as Arab refugees, even by other Arabs. The concept of a Palestinian “nation†simply did not exist." It doesn't matter if you call it a state, nation or territory. It doesn't matter what it is now or was in the past. The concept of an autonomous Palestinian whatever was formally expressed decades before the 1970s.
The notion of nation came very late in that region. Prior to WW1, it was divided into administrative regions under the Ottoman empire, and those had boundaries that fluctuated over times. When the Europeans carved up the Ottoman empire, they also did it very much in a very arbitrary way. No one thought of themselves as Iraqis, for instance. That came along much later. Similarly, in Palestine, which was a region, became the hot disputed land between the Jews and the Arabs. When the UN resolution came about, the Arabs rejected, as they rejected any claim by the Jews to a state. Many of them were looking at the king of Jordan (Transjordan in those days) to take the whole land for the Arabs. It was much later, that these Arabs formed the identity that they have now as Palestinians. Of course, there are those who claim otherwise as they feel the Jews claim to the land is false. But both Jews and Arabs formed their identity much later in the 20th century. Claims going back to biblical times are just ridiculous.
Palestine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Levant#Philistia_and_Palestine)
QuoteOver recorded history, there have been many names of the Levant, a large area in the Middle East. These names have applied to a part or the whole of the Levant. On occasion, two or more of these names have been used at the same time by different cultures or sects. As a natural result, some of the names of the Levant are highly politically charged. Perhaps the least politicized name is Levant itself, which simply means "where the sun rises" or "where the land rises out of the sea", a meaning attributed to the region's easterly location on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea.
QuotePalestine derives from Philistia and its Philistine people, first recorded by the ancient Egyptians as a member of the invading Sea Peoples or Peleset. Though applied in the Bible only to the southwest coast where the Philistines lived, later Herodotus called the whole area "Syria PalaistinÄ"" in his Histories (c. 450 BCE). The Romans used the similar term Syria Palaestina to refer to the southern part of the region from 135 CE following the Bar Kokhba revolt to complete the disassociation with Judaea. The name was carried on as a province name by the Byzantines and Arabs. However, after Greek times it is usually reserved for only the southern portion of the Levant.
†As a side note, Standard Hebrew has two names for Palestine, both of which are different from the Hebrew name for ancient Philistia. The first name Palestina was used by Hebrew speakers in the British Mandate of Palestine; it is spelled like the name for Philistia but with three more letters added to the end and a Latin pronunciation given. The second name Falastin is a direct loan from the Arabic form, and is used today specifically to refer to the modern Palestinians and to political aspirations for a Palestinian state.
Note: there is no letter P in the Arabic language.
Incidentally, the OP was about how Europe became the clearing house of Muslim "refugees", but it has completely derailed into the "Palestinian problem".