Iran - Beyond Top Secret

5 parts of the TV show "Iran - Beyond Top Secret", exposing the tactics of Iran on the way to achieve nuclear bomb and her intention of using it, likewise, you will see the tactics of the CIA to stop Iran. This film contain excellent and rare footage that photographed in Iran, as well as intelligence experts who shows an updated view on the dangerous of Ahmedinejad and nuclear Iran to the free world. Excellent movie of History Channel.
Enjoy watching..

Language: English
Subtitles: Hebrew


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5

Lessons from 9/11? What Lessons?

by Dennis Prager

In attempting to understand 9/11, the first question asked by the world's elites -- as exemplified by leading media and academics -- was, "What did America do to provoke such hatred?"

Ten years later, the same people are still asking the same question. And it is as morally repulsive now as it was then. It was always on par with "What did the Jews do to antagonize the Germans?" or "What did blacks do to enrage lynch mobs?"

As long as people keep asking what America did to incite such hate, nothing will have been learned from 9/11.

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks occurred because of a law of human life that has been true since Cain killed Abel: The worst hate the best (and the second best and the third best and so on). Evil hates good.

The United States of America is a flawed society. As it comprises human beings, it must be flawed. But in terms of the goodness achieved inside its borders and spread elsewhere in the world, it has been the finest country that ever existed. If you were to measure the moral gulf between America and those who despise it, the divide would have to be calculated in light-years.

If the academic and opinion elites of the world had moral courage, they would have asked the most obvious question provoked by 9/11: Were the mass murderers who flew those airplanes into American buildings an aberration or a product of their culture?

As far as those elites are concerned, only the first explanation exists. The 19 monsters of 9/11 were, for all intents and purposes, freaks. They were exceptions, no more representative of the Arab or Islamic worlds than serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was of America. According to the elites, the hijackers happened to be Muslim -- only in name, we have been constantly reassured -- but were not produced by anything within Arab or Islamic society. Even to ask whether anything in those worlds produced the 9/11 terrorists -- or Britain's 7/7 terrorists, or Madrid's March 2004 terrorists, or Palestinian terrorists, or the Taliban, or Hamas -- is to be a bigot, or an "Islamophobe," the ingenious post-9/11 label to describe anyone who merely asks such questions.

It can be said, therefore, that not only has the world learned nothing from 9/11; it has been prohibited from learning anything.

The Muslim regime of Iran violently represses its people and (along with the Muslims of Hamas and of Hezbollah) vows to exterminate the nation of Israel. Muslim mobs murdered innocent people because of cartoons in Denmark. The Muslims of the Taliban throw acid in the faces of girls who attend school. Muslim mobs kill Christians and burn churches in Iraq, Egypt, Nigeria and elsewhere. And we are told that the mere mention of these facts is an act of bigotry.

After 9/11, the normal and decent question that normal and decent people -- people who fully and happily recognize the existence of vast numbers of normal and decent Muslims in the world -- would have posed is this: What has happened in the Arab world and parts of the Muslim world?

But as this, the most obvious question that 9/11 prompted, has not been allowed to be asked, what lessons can possibly be learned?

The answer is, of course, none.

But that has not stopped our media and academic elites from drawing lessons.

And what are those lessons? One is that America -- not the Islamic world -- must engage in moral introspection. The other is that we must oppose all expressions of religious extremism -- Jewish and Christian as well as Muslim, since, according to the Left, America's conservative Christians are as much a threat to humanity as are extremist Muslims.

Perhaps the best-known exponent of these non-lessons has been Karen Armstrong, the widely read religious thinker and former nun. She was invited to give a presentation on compassion at the nation's religious memorial service this past Sunday. And what was her message?

"9/11 was a revelation of the dangerous polarization of our world; it revealed the deep suspicion, frustration and rage that existed in some quarters of the Muslim world and also the ignorance and prejudice about Islam and Middle Eastern affairs that existed in some quarters of the West ..."

There you have it: Muslims have rage and deep suspicion; the West has ignorance and prejudice.

If that's what the world learns from 9/11, those who died that day died in vain.



Town Hall

9/11 Science and Conspiracy

Here is National Geographic 9-11 Science and Conspiracy video. The documentary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks proves the false conspiracy theories.

With the use of high-tech forensic experiments, eyewitness footage, CGI re-creations, and an in-depth analysis by experts and theorists on all sides of the story, the documentary attempts to examine both alleged conspiracies and available evidence.

The documentary, National Geographic 9-11 Science and Conspiracy sets out to conduct a forensic investigation designed to test various tenets of some common 9-11 conspiracy theories. What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers? Was it from the fires, or were explosives placed inside the buildings, causing them to implode? Did a missile, rather than a commercial airline jet strike the Pentagon?

CONSPIRACY VS. SCIENCE

Conspiracy theories are put to the test. How well do they stand up against the visual simulations of professional engineers? See how science supports official stories and debunks the conspiracies below.

THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDINGS

Official Story: The collapse was caused by fire initially fed by the jet fuel from the planes.
Testing the Official Story: Using original construction blueprints, photographs, and construction data, Purdue University, along with the American Society of Civil Engineers, created a model structure of the north World Trade Center tower and a scaled 767 jetliner. To model the fuel load, Purdue launched aluminum cans filled with liquid to represent an airline wing colliding with a steel column. The final simulation showed the internal destruction of supporting columns, the disintegration of the jetliner, the atomizing of the fuel, and the resulting fires that softened the steel framework of the building and brought it down.

Conspiracy: The fire could not have gotten hot enough to melt the steel.
Science: The Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center (EMRTC) designed explosives to test the effects of burning jet fuel on steel. EMRTC used a bare steel beam because the National Institute of Standards and Technology reports that much of the any fireproofing material would have been knocked off at the moment of impact. Within two minutes of igniting the fuel, the temperature peaked just above 2,000 Fahrenheit and complete structural failure occurred in less than four minutes.

Conspiracy: The collapse was caused by controlled demolition.
Science: The film crew recorded the demolition of a college dormitory building to learn all that is involved in the process of prepping and loading. The first step was to expose the columns in order to attach explosives to them. The World Trade Center had 47 inner core columns that would have needed to be prepared. To cut the steel beams the demolition team used a shape charge, which is piece of copper apportioned to a shape-charged weapon. When an explosive is attached and ignited, the device implodes and forms a stream of liquid copper that cuts through the steel. A demolition of this scale would leave clear evidence behind, but no such traces were found at Ground Zero.

Conspiracy: Thermite, which is less traceable, was used in the controlled demolition that brought down the towers.
Science: Some Truthers claim that pulverized dust found by some New Yorkers after the attack contained the chemical signature of thermite. Scientists assert that even if this dust did contain thermite, it would be impossible to determine whether the thermite came from a controlled demolition or simply from the melting of the airplanes. EMRTC designed an experiment to see if thermite was a plausible option in the collapse of the towers. The thermite in the test was not even able to melt a column much smaller than those in the World Trade Center.

THE ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

Official Story: Hijackers caused a commercial airplane to crash into the building.
Testing the Official Story: Purdue University created a visual simulation of the crash, which indicated the victims’ bodies would have been pushed forward in relation to one another, just as they were in the actual attack. To further investigate, EMRTC launched a projectile into a simulated structure. They did not include wings in the projectile model because Purdue asserted they were of little consequence as the Pentagon was so heavily reinforced. The experiment created a hole in the structure the approximate size of the projectile - similar to photo evidence from the actual attack.

Conspiracy: The Pentagon was either bombed or hit by a missile.
Science: EMRTC also planted an explosive in the same model structure and compared the results to photos of the Pentagon after the crash. The explosive test demonstrated a different sort of damage. The structure blew out from the point of the explosion, causing complete destruction of floors and walls. This dispersed debris did not match the photo evidence.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Part 9


Part 10


By: National Geographic

Obama Administration Corrects Clapper's Claim That Muslim Brotherhood Is 'Secular'

The Obama administration took the rare step Thursday of correcting its own intelligence chief after the official claimed Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular."

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper discussed the Islamist group during a hearing on Capitol Hill earlier Thursday. He testified that the organization has "pursued social ends" and a "betterment of the political order," and downplayed its religious underpinnings.
"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Clapper said. But the DNI later issued a statement to "clarify" that claim.

"To clarify Director Clapper's point, in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood makes efforts to work through a political system that has been, under Mubarak's rule, one that is largely secular in its orientation. He is well aware that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a secular organization," DNI spokesperson Jamie Smith said.

While the Brotherhood has renounced violence, one of its goals is to pursue the creation of an Islamic state. The CIA's own website lists the Brotherhood as a "religious-based" party.

Clapper's claim quickly drew scrutiny on Capitol Hill, even before his office walked back the statement. "I am concerned that the DNI's assessment does not agree with recent public statements by senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood nor does it agree with the organization's publicly stated goals," Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a written statement, describing the group as "radical." "They're as secular as Billy Graham and the pope are secular," former GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said.

The Clapper remark came amid new developments in Egypt. Some expected President Hosni Mubarak to step down in the face of massive protests, but he instead announced that while he was transferring some authority to his vice president he would remain in power until elections in September.

Regardless, a number of U.S. officials have expressed concern about the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is officially outlawed under Mubarak, seizing political power in the state.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the United States should facilitate a "post-Mubarak transition in order to avert further violence and restore calm." As part of that, she said the United States should "guard against the use of the transition process by nefarious elements such as the Muslim Brotherhood to directly or indirectly undermine Egypt's evolution to a democratic republic."
This isn't the first time Clapper has stumbled on the public stage.

During a televised interview in December alongside other top security officials, Clapper was stumped when asked about a major set of terror arrests in Great Britain.

The White House later acknowledged that Clapper had not yet been briefed about the sweep, while defending him as "the consummate DNI."

by FOX News

ADDITION:

What is Muslim Brotherhood?

Since its founding in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood (Hizb al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun) has profoundly influenced the political life of the Middle East. Its motto is telling: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The Muslim Brotherhood applied the term jahiliyya to all societies not practicing a government ruled by Sharia, Islamic law. Accordingly, only societies governed by Sharia are recognized as true Muslim societies through their recognition of Allah’s divine Book (Quran) and their dedicated efforts to create a purified Islam polity.

The Brotherhood argued that it is every Muslim’s duty to fight for the establishment of a true Islamic State, and in doing so they accept and live by Sharia. Qutb and his followers carried the idea of jahiliyya to a more extremist level and argued that nations not governed by Sharia are open to attack from Sharia practicing Muslims. Terrorist groups, such as Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq justify their attacks on other nations (ex: suicide bombings) by preaching these ideas imbedded in the Brotherhood and Qutb’s philosophies.

Qutb thus provided an ideological frame work based in principles of Islam (jahiliyya and jihad) with which Muslims could fight an unjust government.

For Hassan al-Banna jihad represented each Muslim's duty to Allah to follow Islamic law even when it is difficult to do so. Jihad offers a manner in which Muslims can prove their loyalty to Allah by not backing away from their beliefs even when hostilely confronted about them. Al-Banna witnessed how Muslims had abandoned Jihad, a prominent practice of Islam. Therefore, al-Banna called for a return to militant jihad and he stressed its importance by switching from teaching the traditional schooling of Islam to its young members, in favor of educating them in religion and physical education in order to prepare them for a jihad: a system of training called jihadia (Hiro 61; Spears). According to the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology, those who abstain from jihad will be dishonored and punished by Allah in death.

The Brotherhood, also, revived and reinstated the Islamic doctrine of Martyrdom. Al-Banna said that muslims should “learn the art of death” and they should “deliberately and purposefully plan how hard to make their deaths count for the cause of Islam” (Brown 215).

The Hypocrisy of President Barack Hussein Obama

Egyptian vs American Protests

Hundreds of thousands of protesters in Egypt take to the streets demanding change from what they perceive to be an unresponsive government. United States President, Barack Hussein Obama is so moved that he calls the President of Egypt urging Mr. Mubarak to step down from his office, perhaps immediately.

He then steps to his powerful presidential podium and speaks to the protesters in Egypt saying President Hosni Mubarak must begin a transition immediately toward a new government, and assured protesters "we hear your voices".

He continued on to say, To the people of Egypt, especially the young ones, I want to be clear: we hear your voices. I have an unyielding belief that you will seize your own destiny."

How arrogant is it that this president thinks he can simply inject himself into the political debate of the sovereign nation of Egypt?

Think back now to the summer of 2009 when hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Washington DC and cities all across this nation to protest the Obama Healthcare Bill that was passed anyway, against the will of the majority of the American people.

Did President Obama take to his all powerful, all seeing, presidential podium and say, "we hear your voices"? No, he didn't. Did he say "You will seize your own destiny"? No, he didn't. Did he get on the phone and call Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and advise them that they make an immediate change in course? No, he didn't.

In fact, the White House unbelievably declared that it wasn't even aware of the protest rally that received nationwide coverage in advance of the rally. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, "I don't know who the group is."

Imagine if President Mubarak, or the leader of any other country had gone on international television and told the Tea Party protesters, "We hear your voice" and called on President Obama to step aside as President of the United States?

What is wrong with this man, that he is so willing to listen to the will of the people; but only when it is the will of people outside of his own nation? What level of self-importance must he have to believe that the people of Egypt will actually stop their protests because "we hear your voices"? And what level of hypocrisy is it that he can respond to the protesters of Egypt and completely ignore even larger protests from American citizens?

Mr. President, I advise you learn to listen to the people of this country. You know, the ones who actually pay your salary. Perhaps we should demand that you step down immediately, like you are demanding of the President of Egypt.

Listen to US Mr. President. It is our nation you swore to defend.

American Protests

Egyptian Protests

Texas Gop Vote

The Third Jihad

A must-see 4 video clips from a new documentary on the cultural jihad already taking place in America.

What's Obama's Agenda?

Op-ed: American President Obama aims to de-legitimatize Israel, until it gives in.

by Moshe Dann

Why would President Obama place American prestige, money and influence on the line for a three-month restriction on Jewish building in areas conquered by Israel in 1967? Another round of negotiations is doomed to fail, since Palestinian leaders have already refused to resume talks unless the freeze applies to eastern Jerusalem. Why is Obama pushing this snowball, knowing that any substantive agreement is unlikely in such a short time, if at all?

Agreeing to Israeli conditions for a written commitment not to demand further construction halts, a squadron of fighter planes, and blocking Palestinian moves toward statehood at the UN for one year might serve Obama as an excuse for vetoing a Palestinian appeal to the Security Council. But that hardly seems worth the concessions to Israel. And then, what happens after a year?

Accepting US "incentives" (bribes) is humiliating for Israel – putting politics and money before principle. PM Netanyahu promised that the initial freeze was "one-time-only." And, accepting Israeli conditions is degrading for America. Both sides are morally compromised; but, Israel is portrayed as venal and conniving, trying to avoid making peace, while extorting rewards – a typical anti-Jewish stereotype.

Elliott Abrams and Michael Singh wisely observe: "the troubling precedents set by this package will serve to dim rather than enhance prospects for a breakthrough in peace negotiations…The most worrying aspect of Obama's package is the linkages it establishes between Israeli concessions on settlements (and apparently on the pace of construction in Jerusalem as well) and other unrelated policy matters…With this latest gambit, the United States is trying to rescue a policy that is not worth rescuing. "

What if, however, Obama's goal has nothing to do with any "peace process," agreements, or concessions? What if, magician-like, he and his administration are distracting from their hidden agenda: delegitimizing Israel?

In April, Obama suggested that the safety of American soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and America's "vital national security interests" were linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; he blamed Israel for the impasse.

Israel is trapped
Obama's strategy to weaken and isolate Israel by forcing concessions is evident in his focus on Israeli settlements as "illegal" and "unacceptable," his extreme protests against any and all Jewish home-building in Judea and Samaria, even Jerusalem, and his direct challenge to Israel to expose its nuclear capability and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Demanding another "freeze" for 3 months fits the pattern of maligning Israel.

After the moratorium expires, assuming that nothing changes, Israel will again be blamed and vilified for failing to make "concessions for peace," "stealing Palestinian land," and "oppressing Palestinians." Obama can claim that he tried his best; the Palestinians will be given a pass; and Israel will be further ostracized and condemned. Israel is trapped.

If Israel agrees to American conditions and accepts the bribes, she loses her integrity and the advantage she now has – having unilaterally frozen Jewish construction for more than a year without any positive results. If Israel doesn't agree, she will appear unwise and ungrateful, further undermining her position. Obama can again blame Israel for preventing peace, for American inaction against Iran, and its failures in Afghanistan.

Given Israeli and Palestinian demands, and realities, Obama knows that a three-month deal will achieve nothing; the outcome, however, will denote Israel as a pariah state. This is consistent with the process of de-legitimization that has spread throughout the world.

That explains why the US did not object to condemnations of Israel at the UN and in Europe, Obama's "outreach to the Muslim world," and his enmity towards Israel.

Filled with prejudices and distortions of his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and anti-Israel friends, like Rashid Khalidi, Obama's hostility to Israel, like many European politicians, is aggravated by Israel's resistance to his demands; but, punishing Israel for refusing to agree with him has real consequences which threaten Israel's survival.

Unable to defeat her militarily, Israel's enemies condemn her as immoral, illegal, an outlaw among nations, guilty of apartheid, war criminals, anti-human, even Nazi-like.

Obama's policy failures, therefore, are not just naive mistakes, or impractical; they seem intended to ostracize and weaken Israel until she gives in.

Obama's radical change in American foreign policy towards Israel, his over-reaction to apartment-building for Jews in eastern Jerusalem, his deliberate snubs and offensive attitude, serve to demonize Israel, and cripple her standing in the world.

This agenda ignores a simple fact: If this was a territorial dispute, it would have been resolved during the last 63 years. A second/third Arab Palestinian state will not end the conflict, but perpetuate it; and, with the help of Hamas and Hezbollah via Iran, threaten Israel's survival and the stability of the entire region.

Blaming Israel for resisting such a state creates an atmosphere of hatred and contempt. That de-legitimization seems to be exactly what Obama's administration seeks.





Ynet News

Obama’s Iran Failure

Unlike Arab leaders, American president fails to understand scope of Iranian threat

by Shoula Romano Horing

For the last two years President Obama has been obsessing with “engaging” the Muslim world while ignoring the “moderates” in the Islamic countries who have been imploring the US to stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

For two years President Obama and his administration have fabricated a mythical argument that progress on the Israeli–Palestinian issue through the stopping of settlement construction will help get the “moderate” Arab nations in the region like Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf State, Egypt and Jordan on board in stopping Iran.

But the confidential documents from US embassies made public on WikiLeaks reveal that those countries have already been on board, by hounding and begging the Obama administration to take military action, including airstrikes and the use of ground forces, against the Iranians

Moreover, while Obama was wasting time and personally orchestrating public confrontations with Israel over the settlement issue and the creation of a Palestinian state, it seems that Arab Sunni leaders, in private communications with US officials, did not even mention the settlements or the Palestinian issue as their main urgent concern. As one Middle East expert from Cairo told the Los Angeles Times, the official stance in the Middle East led by Arab Sunni states has always been” that it is Iran and not Israel that poses the main threat to the region.”

According to WikiLeaks, Saudi Arabian King Abdullah urged the US to attack ”evil” Iran, saying that “it is necessary to cut the head of the snake.” King Hamad of Bahrain was quoted in 2009 as saying ”the Iranian nuclear program must be terminated by whatever means necessary. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.” Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed urged the US not to appease or engage Tehran, referring to it as an “existential threat” and stating that “Ahmadinejad is Hitler.”

Iran is not Soviet Union
It appears that Arab leaders agree with Prime Minster Netanyahu‘s assessment that Iran is the main threat to peace and stability in the Middle East and not the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and that economic sanctions may hurt Iran but military action is the only way to stop it.

It seems that Obama chooses to ignore the concerns about Iran from his friends, and feels compelled to occupy himself with sideshows like the Israeli-Palestinian issue and “settlements” because he does not understand the dangers of a nuclear armed Iran. Obama does not believe in a military solution because he believes it is possible to “contain” Iran as the US contained the Soviet Union. But he does not understand that contrary to the Communist leaders, Iranian leaders are not “rational “adversaries.

To understand Iran’s ambitions it is necessary to understand Iran’s religious ideology. The Iranian regime believes that the right religion for humanity is Islam and the right sect of Islam is Shiite and not Sunni. Iran’s ultimate aim is to establish global Islamic rule, a new Islamic empire, but this time under Shiite leadership.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated in the past his belief that amidst the chaos of a catastrophic war, the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, would make his prophesied Messianic return and establish new order where the whole world would convert to Shiite Islam. This belief lies at the heart of Iran’s ambition to spread its influence and acquire nuclear weapons and this is the reason such ambition is dangerous not only for Israel but for Sunni Arab countries, Europe and the world. Acquiring nuclear capability would give Iranian leadership even more room for reckless and aggressive foreign policy.

The Sunni Arabs understand the Iranian Shiite ambitions for regional hegemony and the threat to their survival, even though Obama does not. The Israeli government should stop participating in the sideshows of Obama and refuse any requests for a settlement freeze or negotiations over a future Palestinian state until the Iranian threat is eliminated.

Shoula Romano Horing is Israeli-born and raised. She is an attorney in Kansas City, Missouri and a national speaker; Her blog: www.shoularomanohoring.com

Does Settlements Freeze Deal Make Sense?

Freeze debate should take into account some facts about settlements, US politics

by Yoram Ettinger








1. The complex nature of Jewish construction in the settlements:

* If Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria prejudges the outcome of negotiation, wouldn't Palestinian construction in Judea and Samaria have the same effect?!

* If the uprooting of Jewish communities advances peace, why would the uprooting of Arab communities undermine peace?!

* The call for uprooting Arabs is immoral; isn't the uprooting of Jews just as immoral?!

* If the 300,000 Jews, among 1.5 million Arabs, in Judea and Samaria constitute an obstacle to peace, how would one define the 1.5 million Arabs, among 6 million Jews, within pre-1967 Israel?!

* If Jewish settlements/communities in Judea and Samaria (established1967) constitute the obstacle to peace, why was the PLO established in 1964?! Why did anti-Jewish Palestinian terrorism flare up during the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s?! Why did the Arab-Israel wars erupt in1948/9, 1956 and 1967? Why did an unprecedented Palestinian terrorism surge follow the 1993 Oslo Accord and the 2005 uprooting of 25 Jewish communities in Gaza and Northern Samaria?!

* Past freezes, slowdowns and dismantling of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria intensified pressure and exacerbated terrorism – what would be the impact of another freeze?!

2. White House promises, guarantees and commitments by US presidents are evasive and illusive:

They are replete with escape routes, ambiguity, non-automaticity, and always subject to US' – and not the recipient's – interests. Even the tightest US treaty – with NATO – allows the US to consider the activation of military force.

3. Precedents of US commitments raise doubts:

* The 1954 US-Taiwan defense treaty was concluded by President Eisenhower and terminated by President Carter in 1979.

* In 1957, Israel retreated from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for President Eisenhower's Executive Agreement, which committed US military deployment should Egypt violate Sinai's demilitarization and blockade Eilat.

* In 1967, Egypt violated Sinai's demilitarization and blockaded Eilat, but President Johnson declared his predecessor's commitment non-binding.

* In 1975, President Ford sent an official letter to Prime Minister Rabin, declaring that the US shall give great weight to Israel's position that the Golan Heights should remain under Israel's control. In 1979, President Carter declared Ford's letter non-committal.

* In 1982, President Reagan stipulated – in order to overcome Congressional opposition – that the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia would not be stationed in Tabuq, south of Eilat. In 2003, President Bush justified the Saudi deployment of the fighter planes to Tabuq by altered strategic regional circumstances.

* In 1991 President Bush promised Prime Minister Shamir – in return for Israeli restraint in face of Iraqi Scud missiles - to favorably consider granting Israel $10 billion loan guarantees for the absorption of one million Soviet Jews, and to dedicate 30% of the bombing in West Iraq to the destruction of the Scud launchers. Prime Minister Shamir kept his side of the bargain; President Bush did not!

* In 2000, President Clinton promised Israel $800 million for the retreat from Southern Lebanon, none of which has reached Israel.

4. An American president is not omnipotent, and Congress has the capabilities to enhance US-Israel cooperation:

An American president represents one third of the US government, equal in power to the other third, the US Congress. Unlike the Parliamentarian system, a US president does not determine the list of candidates to the Legislature, the identity of congressional leaders, nor the slate of legislation to be introduced in Congress. A president is constrained by a robust system of checks and balances and by a complete separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislature.

It was Congress – sometimes in defiance of presidents - which terminated US military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua, facilitated the Jewish Exodus from the USSR (the "Jackson-Vanik Amendment"), cut foreign aid to Turkey following the latter's invasion of Cyprus, accelerated the fall of South Africa's White Regime (overriding Reagan's veto), etc.

In 1991, Congress forced President Bush to transfer to Israel $700 million worth of military systems, in addition to a $650 million emergency grant and the refurbishing of the port of Haifa for the benefit of the Sixth Fleet.

5. Congress shares policy-making power, while possessing exclusive legislative power:

Congressional posture is bolstered during economic crises (e.g. currently) and presidential posture is enhanced during wartime.

In 1995 and 1999, Congress intended to force the president to transfer the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but Israel's prime ministers urged Congress to temper the legislation, thus dooming the effort.
In October 1998 – a few days before the convening of the Wye Plantation Conference – Democratic congressional leaders told Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "When it comes to opposing pressure on Israel, we are with Newt (Gingrich)." However, an Israeli prime minister pulled the rug from under their feet….

The US Congress – equipped with the Power of the Purse – has the Constitutional capabilities to initiate, suspend, amend and rescind policies. Congress can direct presidents to exercise the veto power at the UN Security Council, supply Israel with vital military systems in face of mutual threats, etc.

Will Jerusalem learn from history by repeating – or by avoiding – critical errors?!





Ynet News

Radical Islam Targeting America

Terrorists convinced that they can get away with murder, and even be rewarded.

by Yoram Ettinger

The United States is justly perceived as the role-model for democracy: freedom of expression, religion, movement, media, Internet and election. Therefore, the US is perceived as a lethal threat by Muslim regimes in the Middle East, all of which are autocratic, representing an ethnic minority (or a military clique), suppressing the majority and fearing democracy.

The US is properly perceived – by rogue Muslim regimes - as the most effective hurdle on their way to attain historically-strategic goals: Saddam Hussein's drive to control the Arab World, Assad's aim to reassert Greater Syria (encompassing Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, parts of Turkey and Israel), Iran's aspiration to dominate the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, etc.

The US has been targeted as a scapegoat by autocratic Muslim regimes, blaming the US – along with the West and the Jewish State – for the humiliation, frustration and rage over the failure to reclaim the glory of ancient Islam.

Since the 7th century, the vision of Islam has been the gradual domination of the globe. According to Prof. Bernard Lewis, the leading expert on Islam, Muslims believe that their victory in Afghanistan, over the USSR, caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, they are convinced that defeating the US would be less difficult, in view of American retreats from Vietnam (1973), the US Embassy in Teheran (1979/1980), Beirut (1983) and Somalia (1993) and the expected evacuation/retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan.

They assume that anti-US terrorism (e.g. 1995/6, 1998 and 2000 anti-US Islamic terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen, culminating in 9/11) entails sustained punishment, while yielding US concessions and retreats overseas and eventually on the US mainland.

Anti-US Islamic terrorism has been emboldened by counter-terrorism officials – such as John Brennan and Eric Holder, President Obama's Advisor on Countering Terrorism and Attorney General respectively - who claim that there is no military solution to terrorism, that there is no global terrorism, that there is no Jihadist terrorism, since "Jihad is a process which purifies the soul" and that terrorism is largely a law-enforcement challenge rather than a military issue. Such deficient moral clarity breeds a deficient operational clarity, emboldening further terrorism.

Rogue/autocratic Muslim regimes have realized that terror is the most effective anti-US weapon, increasingly on the American mainland. They assume that Western leaders have reconciled themselves to engagement and coexistence with terrorism, rather than endeavor to devastate terror regimes through a systematic series of disproportionate traumatic blows.

Terrorism provides the element of deniability, while eroding the confidence of Americans in the capability of their government to maintain homeland security. Terrorists are convinced that they can get away with murder, and even be rewarded. They have concluded that the pen and the tongue are extremely effective in complementing the sword in the battle against Western civilization, led by the US.

The current Islamic assault on the US mainland, through the proliferation of many dormant terror cells and a campaign of conversion to Islam - largely funded by Saudi Arabia - is presented by Yehudit Barsky, Director of Middle East and International Terrorism Division of the American Jewish Congress:

Omar Ahmed, co-founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which has been connected to Hamas and other Islamic terror organizations: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…The Koran should be the highest authority in America and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."

US-born Imam Zaid Shakir, a frequent participant at CAIR's seminars, is a co-founder of the Muslim Zaytuna College, Berkeley, California, which aims at producing Islamic scholars, who will entrench Islam in the US: "Every Muslim who is honest would like to see America become a Muslim country. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be a Muslim." Zaytuna College highlights the supposed relevance of the Sharia laws to the US legal system.

US-born Al-Qaeda operative, Anwar al-Awlaki, inspired US-born Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered 13 American soldiers on November 9, 2009 at Ft. Hood, Texas. He trained Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab, who attempted to detonate explosives on December 25, 2009 in Northwest Airlines flight on route from Amsterdam to Detroit.

US citizen Faisal Shahzad was trained by Taliban and inspired by Anwar Al-Awlaki, attempted the May 1, 2010 Times Square car bombing.

The Al Shabaab, "Holy Warrior Youth Movement," is recruiting in the US via Internet. Eight Al Shabaab recruits – including converts to Islam - were arrested in Minnesota.

Is it realistic to assume that rogue Muslim regimes, which have employed terrorism since the 7th century in order to settle intra-Muslim conflicts, would not employ terrorism in order to settle their conflicts with the US – the "Big Satan"?! Islamic terrorism constitutes a clear and present danger to the US and to the Free World, irrespective of the Arab-Israeli conflict, independent of the Palestinian issue and regardless of Israel's policies or even the very existence of Jewish State – the "Little Satan."

Professor Fuad Ajami, a leading Middle East scientist, issued a warning to US policy-makers in the NY Times back in 1986: "No American diplomatic scheme would spare America the fury of those bent upon eradicating its presence in the region. It is a false reading of a large civilization to say that the terror springs from the impasse between Israelis and Palestinians... It springs from deeper social, economic and political pressures within Mideast society, from the traumas of dislocated newly urbanized youth...Some of it is hatched by merciless men for whom terror is a profession that pays... It does not advance peace between Israelis and Palestinians to pretend that it would solve a problem much larger than their conflict..."




Ynet News

Obama's Next Failure

President fails to understand that PA has no desire, ability to secure deal with Israel.

by Moshe Elad

The electoral defeat suffered by US President Barack Obama is not supposed to be connected to events in the Middle East. Seemingly, his downfall was a result of domestic policy failures. However, when examining Obama's relationship with Abbas and Netanyahu, it's hard not to conclude that on this front too, the US president can expect to lick some wounds.

Obama and his advisors fail to understand that that the Middle East crisis cannot be resolved with "Yes we can" slogans. Several previous presidents realized that the issue is complex, problematic, and beyond their abilities, thereby taking a step back. But not Obama. He will continue to exert pressure until he prompts a collapse, which would mean either a new flare-up, or escaping Palestinian Authority leaders.

What is misleading Obama and his people to such extent? Seemingly, the West Bank presents a positive, encouraging façade: Security calm for the most part, hundreds of projects being built on the ground, reduced unemployment, and a growth rate that hasn't been seen in years. However, all these optimistic indications, most of which are economic, are only the storefront.

Behind the Palestinian façade we discover a very grim picture of despair and frustration. On the one hand, the Palestinian Authority has neither the desire nor the ability to reach a historic compromise with Israel. On the other hand, the PA is having trouble withstanding the American and European pressure to implement such compromise.

Obama fails to understand that as long as Hamas breathes down Abbas' neck, the latter would not be able to realize America's objectives.

Why so?

The name of the game in the territories is zeal. To our regret, at this time the zeal is not found among Abbas and his people, but rather, among Hamas members. We saw it already in the June 2007 events in Gaza. The PLO is perceived as satiated, corrupt and anachronistic, while the Palestinian public is eager for hungry, thin leadership with zeal, regardless of the ideology it represents. For example, should Ahmadinejad present a Palestinian alternative, even he could represent the Palestinians.

Obama and his people are pushing Abbas to stop the incitement against Israel. How exactly can this be done? After all, generations of incitement cannot be erased with mere declarations. Abbas himself does not believe in putting an end to incitement, as it would quickly prompt greater support for Hamas.

Israel to pay price
Very few Palestinians believe Abbas when he proposes, with US encouragement, the handover of areas under Israeli security control to the PA. Most Palestinians understand that the moment the IDF leaves any West Bank town, it may fall into the hands of Hamas, which will enlist the help of apolitical gangs.

Obama's gamble on Abbas as the Palestinian leader disregards not only his failure to control the Gaza Strip, but also his inability to fully control the West Bank. There are towns and villages in the West Bank that President Abbas, is afraid to go into – mostly traditional Hamas strongholds or areas controlled by gangs. This isn't a president – it’s an "exiled ruler."

A harsh debate emerged following the 'You have a partner' campaign, where Israeli elements presented PA leaders as friends of Israel. This campaign provoked great displeasure among residents of the territories and further eroded the PA’s status. 'How can you call for ongoing armed conflict against peace partners?' Abbas was asked by those who wanted to highlight the doublespeak custom he adopted, just like his predecessor Arafat.

Meanwhile, the sight of security personnel destroying settlement products prompted ridicule, at most, among many Palestinians. 'After all, there isn't one settlement in the West Bank that was not built by the Palestinians,' say those who object to these ostentatious moves, adding that 'some senior PA officials made their fortunes through 'banned trade with settlers, so who are you trying to fool here?'

The underground current simmering in the territories threatens to turn into a huge wave that would topple Abbas and his people. Some more pressure from Obama would see Abbas declaring 'let me die with Palestine.' And then, the American president will dispatch his spokesman to say: We tried, but it didn't work. We'll have to fix it.

In any case, Israel will be paying the price for it.




Ynew News

Political Earthquake in US

Sweeping Republican victory proves America indeed Center-to-Right nation.

by Yoram Ettinger

The November 2010 mid-term election produced a seismic political effect: The most rapid and wide-in-scope Congressional and Gubernatorial victory since 1948.

The outcome of the election repudiates Obama's policies and dramatically erodes his political clout. It feeds the confrontational nature of a systematically pro-Israel Congress and increases the number of pro-Israel legislators. It highlights the centrality of the historically pro-Israel American people in the shaping of the American political scene. The outcome of the mid-term election has reconfirmed that the US is indeed The Center-to-Right Nation, which has always been pro-Israel.

The outcome of the November 2010 election behooves a reassessment of Jerusalem's policy toward Washington that has erroneously assumed that US presidents are omnipotent in foreign and national security matters, while Congress is supposedly a "support actor." In fact, Jerusalem's policy toward Washington should reflect the policy co-determining power of Congress - the most authentic representative of the American people, and therefore a bastion of support of the Jewish State.

Contrary to the "Jerusalem Misperception," Congress can force presidents to follow the will of the people in domestic as well as in foreign and national security areas.

In two years, President Obama has been transformed from an electoral asset to a lethal electoral liability, threatening Democrats on Capitol Hill. From a consensus, moderate Democratic president in 2008, he is perceived in 2010 as a president of political polarization, representing the radical Left of the Democratic Party. Never have Americans been so insecure - personally and nationally - and so indecisive about the future of the US.

As high as were the expectations from Obama, so devastating is the perception of his performance domestically (unemployment, foreclosures, taxes, regulations, big government, deficit, controversial health reform, etc.) and internationally (eroded US stature, threat of Islamic terrorism, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, etc.) The Obama Cloud has cost Democrats the support of many independents, women, youth and the elderly, who were responsible for the sweeping Democratic victory in 2008.

The new 112th Congress will be more confrontational within a political system which constrains the power of the president through an elaborate system of Checks & Balances, an effective Separation of Powers, a Congressional Power of the Purse, a Congressional role in policy-making, an exclusive Congressional legislative role and the preconditioning of policy-implementation upon Congressional approval.

For example, it was Congress – and not the president – which terminated US military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua and severed US ties with the white regime in South Africa. Congress has the power – which is not always exercised - to initiate, rescind and curtail arms sales, to award, cut and suspend foreign aid, to expand, limit and suspend US funding of the UN and other international organizations and to direct the President to implement a policy toward other countries and the UN.

Will Israel learn from its errors?
Obama cannot count on a solid Democratic support in the 112th Congress. A substantial number of Democratic legislators distanced themselves from the president during the 2010 campaign in order to survive the wrath of the constituent. Additional legislators may refrain from cooperating with the president, in order to avoid the list of "Obama Casualties" in 2012. For instance, first-term West Virginia Senator, Democrat Joe Manchin won largely on the coattail of a TV commercial featuring him spraying Obama's initiatives with shotgun bullets and calling for the repeal of Obama's healthcare reform.

At a time when "800 pounder gorillas," such as 17 and 14 terms Representatives Ike Skelton and John Spratt – Chairmen of the House Armed Services and Budget Committees – are defeated, hardly any Democrat feels safe toward the 2012 election.

A few Democratic legislators, known for their critical/negative attitude toward Israel – such as 21 terms David Obey, the powerful Chairman of the Appropriations Committee – announced retirement in view of Obama-driven electoral rage. At the same time, scores of newly-elected legislators joining Congress in January, 2011 share a worldview that is usually consistent with pro-Israel sentiments: patriotism, tradition, Judeo-Christian Values, national security, 2nd Amendment, anti-UN, Europe-skeptics, anti-terror and associating Arabs and Muslims with terrorism.

The freshmen legislators were elected by the real winner in the 2010 election: The American constituent, who is cognizant of his/her crucial role in shaping US democracy (e.g. bi-annual district election). The constituent is aware of his/her ability to challenge the Washington establishment and elect legislators in defiance of party headquarters. The constituent believes in the potency of the electoral battle cry: "We Shall Remember in November," which haunts legislators who renege on their commitment to voters.

Moreover, the number of Americans who identify themselves as Independent has reached an all-time high, twice as many Americans identify themselves as Conservative than Liberal and the number of Democrats exceed the number of Liberal folks.

Most Americans are indeed Center-to-Right. They respect the Jewish State as a moral and a strategic ally, which is not a classic foreign policy issue, but largely a domestic issue, whose values are part of the moral foundation of the USA.

Will Jerusalem leverage the post-election bolstered platforms of support in the US in general and on Capitol Hill in particular? Will Jerusalem learn from current errors and refrain from subordinating its policy toward Washington to presidential state-of-mind? Will Jerusalem accord the US democracy and its representatives in Congress their due high-respect and due decisive-role, thus advancing critical joint American and Israel values and interests?






Ynet news

20 Explosive Devices Suspected to be en Route to US

British, American press report security forces trying to trace parcels sent in last 48 hours via airmail to European destinations. It is feared packages scattered in various airports, may already be on US soil. Security beefed at airports

US and European security and intelligence forces are working to trace as many as 20 packages suspected to contain explosives which may have been sent to Jewish facilities, similar to the two devices found Friday in Dubai and Britain.

British and American press reported Saturday that intelligence agencies are trying to trace parcels sent in the 48 hours via airmail to various European destinations from Yemen. No additional devices have been found as of yet.

Meanwhile, comprehensive checks are being held at UPS and FedEx branches in US airports. Jewish facilities have also heightened security measures. It is feared that additional packages, if they indeed exist, are scattered around various airports and might already be on US oil.

Consequently, US airports as well as several European sites, have beefed up security. Checks are mainly conducted on cargo planes. Two UPS planes were checked in Philadelphia but found to contain no explosives.

Despite the MI6's involvement in recieving initial information on the terror alert, there is mounting criticism in the UK regarding the handling of the affair. The Guardian reported that initial screening checks of the UPS facility in East Midlands were inconclusive and that only the discovery of a freight bomb in Dubai prompted an additional check.

The Daily Telegraph reported that British Prime Minister David Cameron was briefed about the incident only at 4 pm GMT – more than 18 hours after US President Barack Obama was informed of the affair by adviser John Bernnan.

Al-Qaeda connection
It was reported Saturday that Dubai police said that the parcel bound for the US contained a bomb hidden in a printer cartridge and bore the hallmarks of al-Qaeda.

The parcel contained explosive pentaerythritol trinitrate (PETN) in a printer cartridge, police said.

"The parcel was prepared in a professional way where a closed electrical circuit was connected to a mobile phone SIM card hidden inside the printer," the statement said. "This tactic carries the hallmarks of methods used previously by terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda."

The mail bomb plot reaffirms concerns regarding Yemen as being one of the most prominent centers of terror activity in the last few years. The New York Times reported Saturday that a connection has yet to be found between the current plot and former US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who is currently in hiding in Yemen.

Awlaki is a prominent figure in al-Qaeda online videos and is considered to have inspired the Texas shootings which killed 12 soldiers, the car bomb in Times Square and the terror plot in a Detroit airplane.

Device found in Dubai

Ynet News

Synagogues Targeted in Possible Terror Plot

US president says suspicious packages from Yemen found in UK, Dubai apparently contained explosives, adds US views case as 'credible terrorist threat' and security to be increased for as long as necessary.

US President Barack Obama said Friday that suspicious packages sent from Yemen to the US apparently contained explosives, and that they were intended for Jewish institutions in Chicago.

Obama said investigators had discovered a "credible terrorist threat" against the United States and that security would be increased in response to the incident for as long as it takes. He said the parcels were bound for "two places of Jewish worship in Chicago."

Speaking at the White House, Obama said Yemen's president had pledged to cooperate in the investigation. Obama expressed suspicions that a militant group called al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is behind the incident, saying the group continues to plot attacks against the United States.

The packages were found in Dubai and the United Kingdom. Obama said an initial examination has determined that "they do apparently contain explosive material."

Obama pledged US officials will spare no effort to find the source of the packages and any additional plots.

Jewish groups warned ahead of time
Michael Kotzin, vice president of the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, told Ynet Friday that synagogues and other locations associated with Judaism were asked to check their mail with additional care even before the bomb threat surfaced.

Kotzin said the first warning came regarding packages originating in Yemen, and later came warnings regarding Saudi Arabia and additional countries.

"We need to be careful on all days of the year, not just today," he said. "We remind synagogues and Jewish institutions every once in a while to be alert and aware of the dangers, and provide lectures on this issue – how to act when such information is received."

The Anti-Defamation League also stated Friday that it had been notified by law enforcement officials that Jewish institutions may be targeted soon. The league also reported mention of warnings against packages arriving from Britain, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. In response, the organization ordered Jewish facilities to remain alert.

'Terrorists were performing trial run'
One of the suspicious packages was found on a United Parcel Service cargo plane at East Midlands Airport, about 260 km north of London. The other was discovered at a FedEx Corp facility in Dubai.

British police said an item found on the UPS plane was sent for further testing. CNN said it was an ink toner cartridge converted into a bomb.

Before Obama spoke, an FBI source had told Reuters that initial tests in Britain revealed no explosives.

In the United States, UPS planes were checked in New Jersey and Philadelphia. The Transportation Security Administration said they were searched "out of an abundance of caution."

US officials and some analysts speculated that the suspicious parcels may have been a test of cargo screening procedures and the reaction of security officials.

"One possibility, if this is terrorism related, is that this may be a trial run," one US official said.

Intelligence about the possible plot had come from an ally abroad, the official said, without elaborating.

The US Department of Homeland Security said it was stepping up aviation security measures as a result of the scare. The British government said it was "too soon to say" whether it would follow suit but was "urgently considering" what steps to take about freight coming from Yemen.

White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan later told reporters that the explosives "were in a form that was designed to try to carry out some type of attack," but he provided no further details.

"The forensic analysis is under way," he said, adding, "Clearly from the initial observation, the initial analysis that was done, the materials that were found in the device that was uncovered was intended to do harm."





by Reuter

What Has Obama Done About Anti-Semitism?

Forget About Israel -What Has Obama Done About Anti-Semitism?

The focus of the Jewish community has naturally been on Obama's Middle East policies and his relationship with and pressure on Netanyahu. Chicago attorney Pejman Yousefzadeh writes about another issue, one that has not received much attention: Obama And Anti-Semitism:

The inability or unwillingness of the Obama Administration to forcefully speak out against instances of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party should also be a cause for concern. The demagoguery of Democrats like Rep. James Moran, who has stated that an “extraordinarily powerful” pro-Israel lobby—with “the strong support of the Jewish community”—was responsible for causing the United States to go to war with Iraq, is well known, but the Obama Administration has not decided to challenge him, or other Democrats like him, for seeking to profit politically from the popularization of anti-Semitic tropes. Nor has the administration taken on members of the liberal blogosphere for engaging in reflexive anti-Israel hatred and general anti-Semitism and for potentially causing a serious rift between liberals and American Jews, a rift that would harm the president’s political prospects and the Democratic Party’s electoral future.

Some might say that a lone Congressman or a handful of lefty bloggers are beneath the attention of the president of the United States. But while no American president wants to engage in rhetorical overkill, there are disturbing trends developing within the base of the Democratic Party that ought to concern the president and certainly concern the American Jewish community. A shocking 2009 poll revealed that 18.4 percent of Republicans blamed Jews for the recent financial crisis. That’s appalling enough, but even worse, the poll revealed that nearly a third of Democrats also blamed Jews for the near-collapse of the American economy. As the administrators of the poll wrote, this statistically significant difference was surprising “given the presumed higher degree of racial tolerance among liberals and the fact that Jews are a central part of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition.” It would be in the president’s interests to fight against anti-Semitism in the liberal community, if only to prevent the defection of American Jews from the Democratic Party. But he seems to be unwilling to do so. If American Jews are not alarmed by this lack of action on the president’s part, they should be.

Yousefzadeh concludes that the policies of the Obama administration in general could have a negative affect on Jewish support for the Democratic party. Of course, the threat of Jewish disillusionment with the Democratic party is an idea that is periodically brought out--often by Republicans. This 'threat' has never materialized.

Then again, we are seeing a level of disillusionment with an unusually popular candidate-cum-president the likes of which we have never seen before. Who knows how far those negative feelings may go or the backlash they may cause.

There is no reason for Republicans to get their hopes up, but Democrats would be wise to take a lesson from the anticipated shellacking they will take in the midterm elections and act accordingly.



Daled Amos

The Real Muslim Threat in America

Muslim Brotherhood much greater threat to US than ground zero mosque.

by Moshe Dann

The struggle against the Islamic Center and mosque near the ruins of the World Trade Center seems over. The owners of the building, whoever they are, have the legal right to build whatever they want, and will exercise that right. The opposition, however, did not lose the fight. It exposed those behind the project and their motives; as a result, many people woke up to the danger of Islamism. Efforts to insist on openness and transparency must continue – but in a different, and more important direction.

The proposed Islamic Center is only a building. A far greater threat to American security and values is the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide Islamist organization that is behind this project, and many others, that seeks to expand the influence of radical political Islam.

Founded in Egypt, in 1928, the Brotherhood is the source of modern radical Islamic movements. With branches in 70 countries and linked to major Islamic organizations, it has an extensive and well-financed network of educational, social and cultural institutions that promote a strategic plan for Islamic dominance – not through violence, but integration, becoming part of the national social and political life, and promoting Sharia law. These connections give it access to political power, and explain why it and the organizations it supports are courted by governments and NGOs.

Adapting to local conditions, the Brotherhood provides educational, social and religious services to Muslim communities, and, because of a lack of local leadership, assumes an advocacy role to non-Muslim political leaders and institutions. Except for its support of terrorism de-legitimization against Israel, and opposition to wars in Muslim countries, it is non-violent, although it distributes radical Islamist literature and is affiliated with radical clerics.

As Lorenzo Vidino observes in his book, The New Muslim Brotherhood in the West, the Brotherhood is "a global ideological movement" that uses a "sophisticated international network" to spread Islam and achieve world domination. Jihad, a uniquely Islamist combination of religious and political/military agendas, seeks to eradicate the "moral bankruptcy of Western culture," and establish Islamic rule via a Caliphate, under Sharia – strict Islamic law.

Through a network of educational, social, professional and cultural organizations – which, in the West, do not reveal their Muslim Brotherhood connection – they exert political influence and promote a mix of religious and political ideologies associated with the extremist Wahhabi form of Islam. Supported by Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, and wealthy Muslims, they espouse a global strategy for Islamic hegemony.

Ian Johnson’s A mosque in Munich; Nazis, CIA and the rise of the MB in the West, explains: the Brotherhood "does more than target Jews. It creates a mental preconditioning for terrorism." Not only do they oppose a "peace process" with Israel, they oppose Israel's existence altogether. Critical of Western and particularly American values, culture and interests, yet part of the system, they have established a vast network of organizations to advance their agenda.

The North American Connection
The Muslim Student Association (MSA,) the largest Muslim campus organization, with more than 250 chapters, was initiated by the Muslim Brotherhood. Although its current involvement is unclear, the agendas are similar. Engaged in protests against Israel and disrupting pro-Israel speakers and forums, assisted by left-wing student organizations, and, of course, tolerated by administrators, this explains the upsurge of hostility towards Israel, opposition to America's involvement in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and "American imperialism."

Steven Merley's comprehensive study of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, published by the Hudson Institute, concludes: "(The Muslim Brotherhood’s) extensive history of support for Islamic fundamentalism, anti-Semitism, and support for terrorism … includes ideological, financial, and legal support, particularly for Hamas and other Palestinian terror organizations."

Brotherhood organizations, like the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which grew out of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), a front group fundraising for Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorist organizations, are not outgrowths of popular, or communal expressions, like other religious organizations, but are self-appointed representatives, combining a volatile mix of religion and politics.

With over 30 branches in North America, CAIR presents itself as the "largest Muslim civil rights organization," seeking to "enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding." A few years ago, CAIR was included in a list of unindicted co-conspirators alleged by prosecutors to have participated in a conspiracy to illegally funnel money to Hamas through the Holy Land Foundation.

Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha write: "Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities … CAIR has a key role in the "Wahhabi lobby"—the network of organizations, usually supported by donations from Saudi Arabia, whose aim is to propagate the especially extreme version of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia … CAIR has consistently shown itself to be on the wrong side of the war on terrorism, protecting, defending, and supporting both accused and even convicted radical Islamic terrorists."

Rebuilding trust a 2-way street
In the early 1990s, following the Oslo Accords, the Brotherhood formed several organizations that opposed any peace agreement. The Muslim American Society (MAS) describes itself as a civic group, involved in "religious, charitable, social, cultural, and educational" affairs, working to improve "family, and society," and “move people to strive for God consciousness, liberty and justice and to convey Islam with utmost clarity. Our vision is a “virtuous and just American society.”
MAS actively recruits voters, which gives it political clout. Lacking any other leadership available, MAS presents itself as the representative of the Muslim community, although many Muslims disagree and are most are not affiliated.

The group publishes a magazine, The American Muslim, which supports suicide bombings as "martyr operations" sanctioned by the Koran, and portrays Asian Muslim terrorists as "freedom fighters."
With all of this information, one would think that US government officials would be concerned about the activities of Brotherhood-supported organizations. Instead, they are feted by the White House, and supported by the State Department, CIA, and even the FBI, according to www.globalmbreport.com – which systematically tracks the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the first modern pan-Arab, transnational Islamic movement in the world, is well-organized and financed, politically savvy and connected. Offering an extremist form of Islam, Wahhabism, linked to a political agenda, Jihad, and world domination, the organization is inconsistent with American values.

The struggle, therefore, must shift from the Islamic center to the Muslim Brotherhood, its message, its mission, and its role in American society. Just as bigotry and prejudice have no place in America, so do misrepresentation and lack of transparency. Such accountability is essential in an open, democratic society, and we are all responsible for protecting that heritage.

By hiding, or deliberately camouflaging their sources of funding, alliances and intentions, some Muslim leaders have contaminated any basis of trust. Rebuilding that trust is a two-way street, a dialogue of respect based on truthfulness. To be accepted, Muslims must nurture an Islam that is consistent with American values, laws and shared ethos.

Part 1/2


Part 2/2




Ynet News