Saturday, March 15, 2008


by Fjordman

1st part of 3  

I do not have the time right now to include hyperlinks to every single piece of information stated here, but almost all of this information should be available online with a quick web search. Robert Spencer has dealt with the Muslim Brotherhood in a number of books, for instance in Onward Muslim Soldiers.[1] I would also strongly recommend the recent book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam,[2] by former Muslim Patrick Sookhdeo. Sookhdeo does[3] excellent research, particularly regarding the systematic Islamization of Britain, but the same blueprints are used in other countries, too.

The Muslim Brotherhood, today widely regarded as the largest Islamic movement in the world, was founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928. Its member groups are dedicated to the motto: "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."

Research analyst Lorenzo Vidino writes about The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe:[4] "Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have moved to Europe and slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations." Their ultimate goal "may not be simply 'to help Muslims be the best citizens they can be,' but rather to extend Islamic law throughout Europe and the United States. With moderate rhetoric and well-spoken German, Dutch, and French, they have gained acceptance among European governments and media alike. Politicians across the political spectrum rush to engage them whenever an issue involving Muslims arises or, more parochially, when they seek the vote of the burgeoning Muslim community. But, speaking Arabic or Turkish before their fellows Muslims, they drop their facade and embrace radicalism."

Moreover, "While the Muslim Brotherhood and their Saudi financiers have worked to cement Islamist influence over Germany's Muslim community, they have not limited their infiltration to Germany. Thanks to generous foreign funding, meticulous organization, and the naïveté of European elites, Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations have gained prominent positions throughout Europe. In France, the extremist Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (Union of Islamic Organizations of France) has become the predominant organization in the government's Islamic Council. In Italy, the extremist Unione delle Comunita' ed Organizzazioni Islamiche in Italia (Union of the Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy) is the government's prime partner in dialogue regarding Italian Islamic issues."

The irony, according to Vidino, is that "Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna dreamed of spreading Islamism throughout Egypt and the Muslim world. He would never have dreamed that his vision might also become a reality in Europe."

Al-Banna may not have believed that to be possible in the short run, but he did dream of conquering areas formerly under Islamic rule. German historian Egon Flaig quotes Banna as saying: "We want the flag of Islam to fly over those lands again who were lucky enough to be ruled by Islam for a time, and hear the call of the muezzin praise God. Then the light of Islam died out and they returned to disbelief. Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, Southern Italy and the Greek islands are all Islamic colonies which have to return to Islam's embrace. The Mediterranean and the Red Sea have to become internal seas of Islam, as they used to be."

ONE OF THE BROTHERHOOD'S FIRST PIONEERS IN EUROPE was Sa'id Ramadan. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute[5] (MEMRI), Sa'id Ramadan, who was al-Banna's son-in-law, joined the Muslim Brotherhood in his youth. At the age of 20, Hassan al-Banna chose Sa'id to be his personal secretary and sent him to Palestine to establish a branch of the movement there. After World War II, when Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini returned to Palestine, Sa'id Ramadan helped him to form military groups for the struggle against the Jews. Al-Husseini was an active accomplice in the Holocaust and visited leading Nazis repeatedly. Terrorist organization Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the MB today.

After Hassan al-Banna's assassination in 1949, Sa'id Ramadan returned to Egypt and became a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1954 he went to Jerusalem with another leading Brotherhood member, Sayyid Qutb, in order to participate in the World Islamic Conference, and was elected conference secretary-general.

In the late 1950s, Sa'id Ramadan managed to persuade Saudi Prince Faisal to help him establish Islamic centers in Europe's main capitals. In 1958, he settled in Geneva and there founded the Islamic Center, which became the headquarters of Muslim Brotherhood members expelled from Egypt. In 1964, he opened Islamic centers in London and Munich, and became the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood abroad.

The oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia has for years granted an influx of money to the powerful Islamic Center of Geneva, Switzerland, now run by Sa'id's son Hani Ramadan. He was made infamous by a 2002 article in the French daily Le Monde defending the stoning of adulterers to death. His brother Tariq Ramadan, a career "moderate Muslim," later called for a "moratorium" on stoning. In 2008 it was announced that Hani Ramadan[6] would receive SFr255,000, the equivalent of two years' salary, in damages from the canton of Geneva. He was sacked in 2004 after defending the stoning of persons guilty of adultery. An appeal commission of the education department sided with Ramadan, annulling the termination. The government also agreed to pay Ramadan's legal fees.

It was the Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi,[7] a follower of Hassan al-Banna in his youth, who directed the prayer at Sa'id Ramadan's funeral in 1995, as Tariq Ramadan proudly reports. Sa'id Ramadan had close contacts with Brotherhood member Sayyid Qutb, whose writings have inspired countless Jihadists around the world, for instance terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. According to writer Paul Berman, Ramadan "not only knew Qutb; he was, at the crucial moment, Qutb's most important supporter in the world of the Egyptian intellectuals. Said Ramadan was the editor who got Qutb started on what became his most important work."

According to Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i,[8] former Kuwaiti minister of education, "The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology of takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy]. Sayyid Qutb's book Milestones was the inspiration and the guide for all of the takfir movements that came afterwards. The founders of the violent groups were raised on the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who worked with Bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida went out under the mantle of the Muslim Brotherhood."

TARIQ RAMADAN,[9] THE GRANDSON OF THE FOUNDER of the Muslim Brotherhood, says decadent Europe will give way to an Islamized Europe. In the 21st century, "The West will begin its new decline, and the Arab-Islamic world its renewal" and ascent to seven centuries of world domination after seven centuries of decline. "Only Islam can achieve the synthesis between Christianity and humanism, and fill the spiritual void that afflicts the West." All good people are implicitly Muslims "because true humanism is founded in Koranic revelations." In a clash with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch-Somali critic of Islam, Ramadan said it was wrong to say that Europe had a Judeo-Christian past. "Islam is a European religion. The Muslims came here after the first and second world wars to rebuild Europe, not to colonise."

Danish theologian Kirsten Sarauw writes in her article "A Declaration of War Against the People of Europe"[10] that in 2007 in Vienna, Austria, a conference was held about so-called Euro-Islam. Prominent Muslim delegates formulated a strategic vision of a Europe dominated by Islam. Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti of Bosnia, envisioned an "upcoming Islamic era." The conference was in agreement about the first and foremost goal, namely the introduction of religious Islamic jurisprudence (sharia) in Europe, "in the beginning at least as a parallel system alongside national laws in European states." As to the real meaning of sharia, they all agreed to avoid publicity as far as possible. According to Sarauw, Tariq Ramadan proclaimed that the real intentions of this work must be concealed from the general public.

In 2007 it was announced that Tariq Ramadan was to hold the Sultan of Oman chair of Islamology at the University of Leiden.[11] Leiden is the oldest university in the Netherlands, founded in the sixteenth century by Prince William of Orange, the leader of the Dutch struggle for independence. Dutch Education and Culture Minister Ronald Plasterk said that he did not object to Ramadan's appointment. Meanwhile, the Amsterdam city council,[12] dominated by the Dutch Labour Party which receives many Muslim votes, developed teaching material warning school children against the opinions of Dutch Islam critic Geert Wilders.

The European Council for Fatwa and Research, headed by Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi, is working on a Muslim Constitution for Europe that will be above national legislation. According to Tina Magaard from the University of Aarhus, behind these ambitions "lies decades of work." Islamic groups have for years aimed at establishing their control over the Muslim communities, and in some cases have won official recognition from government bodies. According to Magaard, "The Imams and Islamists consider the cooperation with the state institutions a transfer of power. Now it is they who rule."

Former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo, author of the excellent[13] book Global Jihad –– The future in the face of Militant Islam,[14] warns that the Islamization going on in European cities is not happening by chance. It "is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders which was planned in 1980 when the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States." The instructions told Muslims to get together into viable communities, set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. To resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically in areas of high Muslim concentration. According to Sookhdeo, the ultimate goal is Islamic rule in Europe.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.



by Fjordman

2nd part of 3

PATRICK POOLE DESCRIBES HOW DISCUSSION OF A DOCUMENT CALLED "THE PROJECT"[15] so far has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson, has information regarding The Project finally been made public. It was found in a raid of a luxurious villa in Campione, Switzerland on November 7, 2001. The target of the raid was Youssef Nada, who has had active association with the Muslim Brotherhood for more than 50 years.

Included in the documents seized was a 14-page plan written in Arabic and dated December 1, 1982, which outlined a 12-point strategy to "establish an Islamic government on earth" –– identified as The Project. According to testimony given to Swiss authorities by Nada, the unsigned document was prepared by "Islamic researchers." It represents a flexible, multi-phased, long-term approach to the "cultural invasion" of the West.

Some of its recommendations include:

  • Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamic actions
  • Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations
  • Involving ideologically committed Muslims in institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations
  • Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be put into service of Islam
  • Instituting alliances with Western "progressive" organizations that share similar goals.

As Patrick Poole says, "What is startling is how effectively the Islamist plan for conquest outlined in The Project has been implemented by Muslims in the West for more than two decades."

Included in this work was the powerful Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Sylvain Besson and Scott Burgess note the striking similarities between Qaradawi's publication, "Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase" and The Project. Qaradawi is backed by Saudi money and founded the major English language website IslamOnline, which has several hundred full-time employees and serves as an international outlet for his teachings. He is also leader of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, which spreads its rulings on sharia-related matters to mosques across Europe. He is based in Qatar, home to the influential Arabic satellite TV channel Al Jazeera, where he runs the popular program "Sharia and Life." The intellectual Dr. Khaled Shawkat warns that Al Jazeera "has been hijacked" by the MB "to the extent that three or four Muslim Brotherhood members sometimes appear on a single news program."

Yusuf al-Qaradawi was an important figure during the Muhammad cartoons riots in 2006 and was indirectly responsible for attacks against the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria. According to Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen, "Clearly, the riots in Denmark and throughout the world were not spontaneous, but planned and organized well in advance by Islamist organizations that support the MB, and with funding mostly from Saudi Arabia." The purpose was to impose sharia-style restrictions on free speech on Western nations.

Ehrenfeld and Lappen state that the Muslim Brotherhood and its offspring organizations employ the Flexibility strategy: "This strategy calls for a minority group of Muslims to use all 'legal' means to infiltrate majority-dominated, non-Muslim secular and religious institutions, starting with its universities. As a result, 'Islamized' Muslim and non-Muslim university graduates enter the nation's workforce, including its government and civil service sectors, where they are poised to subvert law enforcement agencies, intelligence communities, military branches, foreign services, and financial institutions."

Douglas Farah writes about the largely successful efforts by Islamic groups in the West to buy large amounts of real estate. Some groups are signing agreements to guarantee that they will only sell the land to other Muslims. The Brotherhood, particularly, is active in investments in properties and businesses across Europe, laying the groundwork for the future network that will be able to react rapidly and with great flexibility in case of another attempted crackdown on the group's financial structure. Most of the money comes from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

According to Farah, the governments of Europe and the United States continue to allow these groups to flourish and seek for the "moderate" elements that can be embraced as a counter-balance to the "radical" elements: "We do not have a plan. They do. History shows that those that plan, anticipate and have a coherent strategy usually win. We are not winning."

ACCORDING TO JOURNALIST HELLE MERETE BRIX, Muhammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, aided by Saudi Arabia, gives large amounts of petrodollar to various organizations at the forefront of the Islamization of Europe, such as the European Council for Fatwa and Research headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Qaradawi has publicly boasted that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror" and that Muslims will conquer Europe and the United States.

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey estimates that the Saudis have spent nearly $90 billion since the mid-1970s to export their ideology into Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. That may well be a conservative estimate. Since the spike in oil prices following the embargo/financial Jihad in 1973, Arab and Muslim states have received trillions of dollars from the sale of oil and gas, probably the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. A significant portion of this money has been used to buy an army of hirelings and apologists in non-Muslim countries, as well as on financing the global Jihad.

Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, is an international investor ranked among the ten richest persons in the world. In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted about his ability to change what viewers see. Covering the Jihad riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: "Muslim riots." According to Talal, "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty. Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots."

Harvard University and Georgetown University have received $20 million donations from Prince bin Talal to finance Islamic studies. Martin Kramer, the author of "Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America," said: "Prince Alwaleed knows that if you want to have an impact, places like Harvard or Georgetown, which is inside the Beltway, will make a difference."

Georgetown said it would use the gift to expand its Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. The leaders of the Center, renamed to Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, say it now will be used to put on workshops regarding Islam, addressing U.S. policy towards the Muslim world, addressing Muslim citizenship and civil liberties, and developing exchange programs for students from the Muslim world.

Georgetown professor John Esposito, founding director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, has, probably more than any other academic, contributed to downplaying the global Jihadist threat. Kramer states that during the 1970s, Esposito had prepared his thesis under his Muslim mentor Ismail R. Faruqi, a Palestinian theorist of the "Islamization of knowledge." During the first part of his career, Esposito never studied or taught at a major Middle East center. In the 80s, he published a series of favorable books on Islam. In 1993, Esposito arrived at Georgetown, and has later claimed the status of "authority" in the field.

Journalist Stanley Kurtz has demonstrated how the Saudis have managed to infiltrate the US education system and influence what American school children are taught about Islam and the Middle East, not just at the university level but also at lower levels.

Egyptian author Tarek Heggy warns that the Muslim Brotherhood "opposes the notion of a state based on democratic institutions, calling instead for an Islamic government based on the Shura (consultative assembly) system, veneration of the leader and the investiture of a Supreme Guide. In this, they are close to the model established by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran. (...) The Brotherhood calls for a constitutional and legal system based on the principles of Shari'a, including cruel corporal punishments in the penal code (stoning, lashing, cutting off the hands of thieves, etc.)."

Despite this, Robert Leiken and Steven Brooke published an article in Foreign Affairs about the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that the group has "rejected global Jihad" and "embraces democracy." Several US Democratic members of Congress met with the head of the Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, despite that fact that the Egyptian MB has spawned several terrorist movements.

In a memo, the US State Department told its embassy in Cairo to launch a dialogue with religious groups because clashes with them would incite more attacks against US interests. They advised Washington to pressure the Egyptian government into allowing the MB to play a larger role in Egypt's political landscape. There are signs that American authorities are reaching out to the Brotherhood. Steven Stalinsky, the executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, warns that "A lack of knowledge about the Muslim Brotherhood is evident on the part of U.S. officials who are now cozying up to the organization."

As Youssef Ibrahim of the New York Sun comments, "For years, the Soviet Union benefited from those Vladimir Lenin is said to have dubbed 'the useful idiots of the West' –– reporters, scholars, leftists, and assorted romantics who said the Soviet system of totalitarianism was not so bad." He argues that the Brotherhood is now taking over this role. Ibrahim is tired of the silence from the Muslim majority: "In Islam, 'silence is a sign of acceptance,' as the Arabic Koranic saying goes. (ג€¦) The question that hangs in the air so spectacularly now –– particularly as England has been confronted once again by British Muslims plotting to kill hundreds –– is this: What exactly are the Europeans waiting for before they round up all those Muslim warriors and their families and send them back to where they came from?"

The current leader of the MB, Mohammad Mahdi Akef, called on its members to serve its global agenda, declaring "I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America." On its English website, the Brotherhood professes moderation and praises Multiculturalism as a way to spread Islam. However, on their Arabic website, Akef in February 2007 reassured his followers that "the Jihad will lead to smashing Western civilization and replacing it with Islam which will dominate the world." In the event that Muslims cannot achieve this goal in the near future, "Muslims are obliged to continue the Jihad that will cause the collapse of Western civilization and the ascendance of the Muslim civilization on its ruins."

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.




by Fjordman

3rd part of 3

HASSAN AL-BANNA FOUNDED THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD in 1928 with the vision of restoring the Islamic Caliphate. There are signs that his disciple Yusuf al-Qaradawi hasn't given up this goal. In an interview with German weekly magazine Der Spiegel, Qaradawi said: "Islam is a single nation, there is only one Islamic law and we all pray to a single God. Eventually such a nation will also become political reality. But whether that will be a federation of already existing states, a monarchy or an Islamic republic remains to be seen." Dr. Shaker Al-Nabulsi,[16] a Jordanian intellectual, states that: "The Caliphate has remained unchanged from 632 through 2004 –– it has kept its primitive, simple tribal form (the elite's allegiance to the sovereigns) –– an un-democratic structure, despotic, and bloody except for a brief period of 12 years during the rule of Abu Baker and Omar Bin Al-Khattab [the first and second Caliphs]. (...) Since the time of [the Umayyad Caliph] Mu'awiya Ibn Abi Sufyan through the last Ottoman Sultan, (that is from the year 661 through the year 1924), the Islamic Caliphate was drenched with blood, and ruled by fist and sword –– and even today the situation is the same in most of the Arab world."

Nabulsi quotes al-Qaradawi as saying: "'There are those who maintain that democracy is the rule of the people, but we want the rule of Allah.' Such ideas] are a call for the Rule of Allah, discussed by Sayyid Qutb in his book 'The Milestones.' [Qutb] borrowed this idea from Pakistani intellectual Abu Al-'Ala Al-Mawdudi, who introduced the theory that authority is Allah's, not the people's, and that the sovereign is none other than Allah's secretary and His representative on earth."

In one essay, al-Qaradawi writes that: "Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed." However, "as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah," and "the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah [apostasy]."

The adoption of secular laws and equality for Muslims and non-Muslims amounts to apostasy. Harsh words from a man who has voiced support for the traditional sharia death penalty for those leaving Islam.

According to the major website Islam Online, which is owned by Yusuf al-Qaradawi and sponsored by rich Arabs, "Islam is not a religion in the common, distorted meaning of the word, confining its scope only to the private life of man. By saying that it is a complete way of life, we mean that it caters for all the fields of human existence. In fact, Islam provides guidance for all walks of life –– individual and social, material and moral, economic and political, legal and cultural, national and international."

Famed historian Bernard Lewis in 2007 told The Jerusalem Post that Islam could soon be the dominant force in Europe. He warned that this Islamization could be assisted by "immigration and democracy." It is a well-established fact that Muslims vote overwhelmingly for left-wing parties all over Europe.

According to journalist Salam Karam, "For the Muslim Brotherhood, Sweden is in many ways an ideal country, [and it] shares the ideals of the Social Democrats in their view of the welfare society. Leading figures in Muslim congregations are also active within the Social Democratic [Party], and have very good relations with Sweden's Christian Social Democrats –– Broderskapsrörelsen. The Social Democrats have, in turn, and perhaps as thanks for the support they receive from the mosque leadership, shown a tendency to shy away from the fact that there is extremism in some of our mosques. This has given the Muslim Brotherhood the freedom to force its ideology upon [the mosque's worshippers]."

Writer Nima Sanandaji states that "The Social Democratic party has started fishing for votes with the help of radical Muslims clergies." They have been working with the influential Muslim leader Mahmoud Aldebe, president of Sweden's Muslim Association, which is widely believed to be inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1999 Aldebe proposed that sharia –– the Islamic law –– be introduced in Sweden. The Social Democrat Ola Johansson has referred to the book Social Justice in Islam by the Jihadist ideologue Sayyid Qutb as proof that the Socialist ideology could find common ground with Islamic ideas. After the elections in 2002, the Muslim Association sent a congratulation letter to the re-elected Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson, hoping that his party would work for implementing some of the sharia demands of the Association in the future. In 2007, the Social Democrats launched a formalized network for cooperation with Muslims, after they lost the elections the year before.

Walid al-Kubaisi, a Norwegian of Iraqi origins and a critic of sharia supporters, believes Yusuf al-Qaradawi is more dangerous than terrorist leader Osama bin Laden: "In Europe, the Muslim Brotherhood discovered a unique opportunity: Democracy. The democratic system leaves room for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and finances religious communities and religious organizations. This has been utilized by the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate the Muslim communities, recruit members and build the Islamist networks that have become so visible lately." Whereas bin Laden uses bombs, al-Qaradawi exploits democracy as a Trojan horse. The Brotherhood gets their activities financed from Germany, Britain etc. They gain recognition and infiltrate the democratic system.

According to Walid al-Kubaisi,[17] the journalist Dr.Osama Fawzi has revealed that many of al-Qaradawi's trips to Western countries are for the purpose of receiving medical aid and treatment for impotence because he is married to a girl 60 years younger than himself. Kubaisi, who writes Arabic fluently, sent an email to Qaradawi's website, asking whether it was legal according to Islamic law to marry a nine-year-old girl. He got a "yes" in reply.

Muhammad himself, according to Islamic sources, married his wife Aisha when she was six years old and consummated the marriage when she was eight or nine. Since he is the perfect example to emulate for Muslims for time eternity, this is still legal in Islamic law today: Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64[18]

Narrated 'Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been hailed as a "moderate Muslim" by people such as London's Mayor Ken Livingstone, who represents the British Labour Party. Many Muslims voted for the Labour Party in previous elections, and London has a large and growing Muslim population. The cleric visited the UK in 2004, where he was welcomed by Livingstone, and chaired the annual meeting of the European Council of Fatwa and Research at London's City Hall. In January 2008,[19] prominent Muslims pledged to back Ken Livingstone as Mayor of London during the elections in May 2008. A statement praised Livingstone for his support of a Multicultural society and for protecting Muslim communities against Islamophobia, and said that "We pledge to continue our support for the mayor on all levels possible in order to secure his staying in office for a third term." Among the 63 signatories was Tariq Ramadan.

In February 2008, al-Qaradawi was refused a visa[20] to enter to the UK following pressure from British Conservatives. The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said that it deplored the decision, while the British Muslim Initiative (BMI) described the decision to bar al-Qaradawi as "an unwarranted insult to British Muslims." Yusuf al-Qaradawi has called for the death penalty for homosexuality, for the destruction of the state of Israel, has defended suicide attacks and preaches that husbands should beat disobedient wives. He was also indirectly responsible for the torching of the Damascus embassies of NATO member states Denmark and Norway during the Muhammad cartoon riots in 2006.





see also:



7.  Re Yusuf al-Qaradawi –– In banking:; an unsavory land deal:; preaching worldwide terrorism:; Danish cartoons: and








15. and






Fjordman is a noted blogger who writes analytic and original essays on Islam, Scandinavian affairs and global politics. He lives in Trondelag, Norway. He been published on many websites, including Gates of Vienna (

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.



Wednesday, March 12, 2008

What really happened in the Middle-East.


From the day the Zionist Movement was established, the historical meaning of settling the Land of Israel was two-pronged: not only reclaiming the land for the nation of Israel, but mainly returning the Biblical identity to Eretz Yisrael - the Land of Israel.


In order to know what really happened since the establishment of the Zionist Movement please open:

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Franchising "Apartheid": Why South Africans Push the Analogy Part I

Rhoda Kadalie is a former anti-apartheid activist and South African Human Rights Commissioner. Based in Cape Town, she is currently the Director of the Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust and is a widely-published columnist for newspapers including The Business Day and Rapport.

Julia I. Bertelsmann  is the editor-in-chief of New Society: Harvard College Student Middle East Journal.

1st part of 3

ON A COLD NIGHT IN Johannesburg last year, a bus pulled up outside the American consulate. It was the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War in the Middle East-June being a winter month in South Africa-and several dozen activists planned to mark the occasion by protesting U.S. support for "Apartheid Israel." The protest was organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee and most of the demonstrators were South African Muslims.[1] Among their number, however, were black South Africans who shared the organizers' hostility to Israel.

Or so it seemed. A reporter discovered that some of the black demonstrators "were not pro-Palestinian activists, but homeless people bused in from the surrounding townships," he told Ha'aretz. "[M]ost of them refused to protest, opting to sit on the warm bus. The organizers refused to allow it. When I asked one black 'protester' if he was for Palestine, he replied: `I am for nobody.'" The organizers soon ejected the reporter. [2]

Like the `protester' on the bus, most South Africans feel indifferent towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a study conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2007. Of those with clear opinions on the matter, the majority sympathized more with Israel: 28 per cent of South Africans overall sided with Israel compared to only 19 per cent with the Palestinians. [3]

Nevertheless, South Africa has increasingly become the flash point of virulently anti-Israel demonstrations. Many of the country's leaders routinely compare the State of Israel to the apartheid regime that governed South Africa from 1948 to 1994 and imposed an oppressive system of segregation and discrimination on grounds of race. "End Israeli Apartheid" rallies are usually organized by radical Muslim organizations, but some black South Africans have also entered the fray.

Comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were once a fringe phenomenon. Since the start of the second intifada in September 2000, however, they have become a staple of anti-Israel propaganda. The publication of Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid [4] in 2006 gave the analogy new legitimacy-though, oddly, the word "apartheid" only appears three times in the former US President's text.

In South Africa itself, the analogy was something of a novelty when it emerged in August 2001, at the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban (although it has been common currency on the extreme left for more than thirty years now and was a standard trope of Soviet-sponsored "anti-Zionism"). The NGO forum at the conference adopted a declaration that defined Israel as a "racist, apartheid state." [5] The document was rejected by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson, but the analogy remained when the delegates departed. [6]

However potent the Israel-apartheid analogy, few of those who directly suffered from apartheid have bought into it

Senior members of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) began using the analogy to attack Israel and pro-Israel South African Jews. Ronnie Kasrils, a cabinet minister and communist stalwart, supported the comparison and relied on his "Jewish descent" (as he termed it) to lend credence to the claim. Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Archbishop Desmond Tutu also endorsed the analogy and began traveling the world encouraging people to isolate Israel much as they had apartheid South Africa.

Proponents of the analogy used it to appeal to black South Africans, drawing links between Palestinian suffering and their own. But most black South Africans dismiss the analogy. Outside the small Muslim community (1.5 percent of the population),[7] anti-Israel sentiment is largely an elite phenomenon. However potent the Israel-apartheid analogy, few of those who suffered from apartheid directly have bought into it.

A False Analogy

One reason is that the equivalence simply isn't true. Israel is not an apartheid state. Israel's human rights record in the occupied territories, its settlement policy, and its firm responses to terror may sometimes warrant criticism. And Prime Minister Ehud Olmert himself recently warned that Israel could face an apartheid-style struggle if it did not reach a deal with the Palestinians and end the occupation in the West Bank.[8]

But racism and discrimination do not form the rationale for Israel's policies and actions. Arab citizens of Israel can vote and serve in the Knesset; black South Africans could not vote until 1994.[9] There are no laws in Israel that discriminate against Arab citizens or separate them from Jews. Unlike the United Kingdom, Greece, and Norway, Israel has no state religion, and it recognizes Arabic as one of its official languages.

Whereas apartheid was established through a series of oppressive laws that governed which park benches we could sit on, where we could go to school, which areas we were allowed to live in, and even whom we could marry, Israel was founded upon a liberal and inclusive Declaration of Independence. South Africa had a job reservation policy for white people; Israel has adopted pro-Arab affirmative action measures in some sectors.

Israeli schools, universities and hospitals make no distinction between Jews and Arabs. An Arab citizen who brings a case before an Israeli court will have that case decided on the basis of merit, not ethnicity. This was never the case for blacks under apartheid. Moreover, Israel respects freedom of speech and human rights. Its newspapers are far more independent, outspoken, and critical of the government than our newspapers in present-day, post-apartheid South Africa, let alone those of old.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East rated as "free" by Freedom House. [10] The apartheid label is more appropriate for many of Israel's neighbors, which have appalling records when it comes to the treatment of minority groups, political dissidents, and women, and which have explicitly discriminatory policies in operation, ranging from the Saudi ban on non-Muslim religions to the suppression of Kurdish activists in Syria, Turkey and Iran. It is telling that Israel has done more for black Muslim refugees from Darfur than has any Arab or Muslim country, granting hundreds citizenship. By contrast, Egypt's government has persecuted and killed Sudanese refugees, with little international censure.

In the West Bank, measures such as the ugly security barrier have been used to prevent suicide bombings and attacks on civilians, not to enforce any racist ideology. Without the ongoing conflict and the tendency of Palestinian leaders to resort to violence, these would not exist.

Even so, Israel must bear some of the blame for the apartheid analogy. Its not-so-secret military alliance with South Africa from 1973 to 1987 cemented the two countries together in the minds of a generation of anti-apartheid activists. But the relationship is often blown out of proportion and considered in isolation; Arab states carried out billions of dollars in sanctions-busting trade with the apartheid regime during the same time, [11] as did several European countries. Furthermore, Israel never endorsed South Africa's apartheid policies and frequently criticized them at the United Nations, even if it belatedly joined sanctions only in 1987.

Like those who demonize Israel by exaggerating its ties to the old South Africa, proponents of the Israel-apartheid analogy often bend the facts to fit their propaganda. In March 2001, Arjan El-Fassed, founder of the anti-Israel website Electronic Intifada, published a "memorandum" purportedly from former president Nelson Mandela, comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa. [12] The fake memo was reprinted around the world, including in the Arab media, and passed off as Mandela's words. Carter even cited it in a speech at Brandeis University in 2007. [13]

In fact, Nelson Mandela had many positive dealings with Israel. He was encouraged to start Umkhonto weSizwe (MK), the military wing of the African National Congress (ANC), after learning about Israel's liberation movement from his reading of former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin's memoir, Revolt. When he decided to set up MK, Mandela received considerable assistance from former Palmach fighter Arthur Goldreich. (The Palmach was one of the predecessors of the Israel Defense Forces).

Like those who demonize Israel by exaggerating its ties to the old South Africa, proponents of the Israel-apartheid analogy often bend the facts to fit their propaganda

The ANC has re-written much of its own history, however, and removed positive references to Israel. In 1953, for example, ANC secretary-general Walter Sisulu visited Israel on an historic tour that included China, the USSR, the UK and Eastern Europe. The trip was transformative, leading him to moderate many of his black nationalist views and embrace multi-racial opposition. When Sisulu died in 2003, however, the ANC's obituary omitted his visit to Israel, while mentioning the other stops. [14] Such manipulation threatens to degrade the legacy of the anti-apartheid struggle.

The Prophets of Prejudice

Not only has the ANC begun to distort the history of its relations with Israel, but several former anti-apartheid activists in the party have joined a cottage industry that exploits the Israel-apartheid analogy for personal and political gain. Troublingly, their anti-Israel diatribes are sometimes barely distinguishable from antisemitism. Foremost among these prophets of apartheid is Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who has energetically supported the campaign to demonize Israel as an apartheid state.

At the end of 2007, Tutu was the keynote speaker at a conference on "The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel" at Boston's Old South Church. Tutu addressed his remarks entirely to Jews (few of whom were actually present, since the conference was held on the Jewish Sabbath.) He warned: "Don't be found fighting against the God, your God, our God who hears the cry of the oppressed." Tutu made no appeal to Arabs or Palestinians to do their part. Nor, in fact, did he refer to Israelis. He referred only to Jews, eschewing the standard distinctions made by anti-Zionists who want to avoid accusations of antisemitism. [15]

Ronnie Kasrils has similarly exploited his anti-apartheid credentials to achieve celebrity status in the anti-Israel movement and send his self-serving memoir, Armed and Dangerous, into a second printing. [16] He was embarrassed by reports last year in the Palestinian press that he had told an audience at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank "that the guns should be pointed towards the enemy,"[17] though he disputed the accuracy of the quote.

Another South African who has staked his reputation on the Israel-apartheid analogy is John Dugard. Dugard, who carries considerable weight in certain human rights circles, serves as the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories. He was appointed in 2001 by the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights, which has since been replaced by the Human Rights Council. Despite initial optimism about the Council among democratic member states, it has repeated some of the mistakes of its predecessor by remaining fixated on Israel while ignoring truly malevolent dictators.

Last year, Dugard told the Council that Israel's policies resembled those of apartheid South Africa and that its aim was to secure "domination by one racial group (Jews)." [18] He admitted, however, that the terms of his investigative mandate prevented him from considering human rights violations by Palestinians-whether against Israelis, or against each other. [19] These limitations did not prevent him, in February 2008, from issuing a report which declared that Palestinian terrorism was a consequence of Israeli policies. [20] Dugard also said that a distinction had to be made between acts committed by Al Qai'da and those by Palestinian terrorists, leading Israel's UN Ambassador to retort angrily that both sets of terrorists were united by their intent to kill civilians.

These three detractors - Tutu, Kasrils and Dugard-share two traits. One is their neglect of human rights elsewhere. They behave as though human rights violations and terror do not matter unless there is an Israeli nearby on whom the crime can be blamed. Indeed, Tutu was present last year when Carter declared that the word "genocide" had a narrow "legal definition" which the Sudanese government-sponsored onslaught in Darfur did not meet.[21]

Just as Carter lost his sense of moral indignation when talking about horrors perpetrated in Darfur, so did Dugard when talking about Palestinian suicide bombings. Speaking to students at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, he declared: "Without justifying it [suicide bombing], I think one can understand it."[22]

Kasrils is similarly hypocritical on the question of human rights. In his book and speeches, he frequently glorifies Josef Stalin's Soviet Union-one of the most repressive and murderous regimes in human history. As Intelligence Minister, he signed an agreement to cooperate with Zimbabwe on defense and security matters and crudely scolded a journalist who raised questions about Zimbabwe's record on human rights under the regime of Robert Mugabe.[23]

Tutu, Kasrils and Dugard...behave as though human rights violations and terror do not matter unless there is an Israeli nearby on whom the crime can be blamed

The second trait common to these self-appointed prophets of apartheid is that they have been sidelined in the new South Africa. Kasrils, for example, was recently voted off the ANC's national executive. His anti-Israel activity is the only way for him to preserve his diminishing political relevance. Nobel laureate Tutu has similarly used the issue to maintain his political relevance on the international scene. He has been sidelined in South Africa ever since President Thabo Mbeki publicly questioned his anti-apartheid credentials and accused him of dishonesty in comments made in 2004.

Responding to criticisms Tutu had made of the ANC, Mbeki wrote in his weekly online letter: "The Archbishop has never been a member of the ANC, and would have very little knowledge of what happens even in an ANC branch. How he comes to the conclusion that there is "lack of debate" in the ANC is most puzzling. Rational discussion about how the ANC decides its policies requires some familiarity with the internal procedures of the ANC, rather than gratuitous insults about our members . . . The Archbishop proposed what our nation needs to do to determine its agenda. But as we have said in this Letter, to succeed in this task, all of us must educate ourselves about the reality of South Africa today, internalise the facts about our country, and respect the truth."[24] Tutu responded: "Thank you Mr President for telling me what you think of me, that I am - a liar with scant regard for the truth, and a charlatan posing with his concern for the poor, the hungry, the oppressed and the voiceless. I will continue to pray for you and your government by name daily as I have done and as I did even for the apartheid government. God bless you." [25] (The ANC, on Mbeki's behalf, apologized soon thereafter, but added: "[W]e do recognize that even someone like yourself has the capacity to err."[26].) For Tutu, then, the Israel-apartheid analogy may partly be an attempt to sustain an international profile.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.


Franchising "Apartheid": Why South Africans Push the Analogy Part II

2nd part of 3

A Shifting Foreign Policy

The advent of the Israel-apartheid analogy coincides with a shift in South Africa's foreign policy towards the Middle East. Since 1994, South Africa had backed a two-state solution and supported the Oslo peace process-an even-handed approach, despite occasional demonstrations of solidarity with old ANC allies like Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi.

After the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000, South Africa crept away from this policy toward one of open hostility to Israel. While still advocating a two-state solution, South Africa began issuing one-sided condemnations of Israel, often attacking Israeli responses to terror without mentioning Palestinian terror itself. It openly backed Kasrils and other ANC leaders who participated in anti-Israel campaigns.[27]

In May 2007, the government appeared to extend an invitation to Hamas [28] (though it backed away on the grounds that the invitation had been conditional on Hamas forming a national unity government with Fatah, which quickly became moot as Hamas seized control of Gaza).[29] At its 52nd national conference in December 2007, the ANC endorsed the Israel-apartheid analogy, declaring that the "Naqba" - the Arabic word for catastrophe widely used in the Arab world to describe the events of 1948 - led to "a systematic policy of colonial expansion, ethnic cleansing and military occupation of the most brutal kind, which as South Africans we readily recognize from our own experience of apartheid."[30]

A document circulated prior to the conference suggested re-examining the ANC's support for a two-state solution, and advocated "forging strategic links with Iran and Syria, and others towards developing common approach on the matter, for just solutions." [31] Indeed, recent evidence suggests that Hezbollah used night-vision goggles provided by South Africa during the 2006 Lebanon War. [32] And over the past few years South Africa has emerged as the chief defender of Iran's nuclear ambitions at the UN Security Council.

In 2004, South Africa signed a trade deal with Iran that was rumored to allow uranium sales.[33] South Africa also tried to prevent the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from referring Iran to the UN Security Council, where as a non-permanent member South Africa continues to oppose sanctions on Iran. In 2007, Kasrils visited Iran, where state news reported that he praised its nuclear program (he later denied doing so).[34]

South Africa's growing hostility towards Israel reflects a return to the anti-Western fulminations of the Cold War era. South Africa has, after all, protected the tyranny of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and opposed Security Council resolutions on Darfur and Myanmar. These positions appeal to a nostalgic ANC elite, though not to most black South Africans, only 14 percent of whom approve of Mugabe, for example.[35]

The real reason for South Africa's shift, however, may simply be material. When Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq, ANC leaders allegedly sought illicit oil deals for the party, in violation of the UN's oil-for-food program.[36] The ANC has admitted its involvement in one such deal, and the government refuses to release the findings of an official investigation.[37] Some have speculated that similar deals may be at stake in the relationship with Iran and Syria.[38] Thus, despite the diminishing political relevance of Kasrils and other champions of the Israel-apartheid analogy, the ANC is finding independent, self-serving reasons to support it.

South Africa's growing hostility towards Israel reflects a return to the anti-Western fulminations of the Cold War era

The government still wishes to play both sides of the divide: President Mbeki has been known to attend local Israel Independence Day celebrations, for instance. And the ANC is wary of taking actions that will result in economic retaliation by Israel. In 2004, Israel closed its trade office in Pretoria, citing budgetary restrictions, though acting Israeli ambassador Daniel Pinhasi was quoted as saying that South Africa's position on Israel was "more hardline than some members of the Arab League."[39] The South African government responded to this rebuke obsequiously, inviting Israel's Likud Party and then-Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to visit. Indeed, South African critics of Israel were taken aback by the government's sudden return to even-handedness.[40] In 2007, the ANC advertised and supported an "End the Occupation" campaign, but specifically declined to join its call for an economy boycott of Israel.[41] South Africa's policy on Israel does not reflect the fulminations of Kasrils and those like him, but is based upon the ANC's own political and economic interests-including the desire to be taken seriously by the democratic world while profiting from its enemies.

Muslim Antisemitism

Another important reason for South Africa's pro-Middle East foreign policy and stance on Israel is its 800,000-strong, vocal, and well-organized Muslim community, which is radically anti-Israel. Muslim organizations, such as the Muslim Judicial Council (MJC), Islamic Unity Convention (IUC), and the militant group Qibla openly back Hamas and Hezbollah, frequently broadcast antisemitic diatribes over the radio, and organize numerous protests and boycotts against Israel each year. [42]

Other influential organizations with heavy Muslim involvement include the Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Pretoria-based Media Review Network (MRN), which promote the Israel-apartheid analogy and call for the boycott of Israeli products and the ultimate dissolution of the State.[43] The MRN also propagates Holocaust denial.[44]

Muslim organizations have considerable access to the ANC leadership and have found influence in many NGOs, including the Freedom of Expression Institute. They also have influence within the ANC Youth League and the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), a large umbrella organization for trade unions and the ANC's leftist alliance partner.

Kasrils is a regular speaker at demonstrations orchestrated by pro-Palestinian groups. In 2002, he attended a Qibla march in Cape Town where demonstrators shouted "Death to Israel, death to Sharon" and "One American tourist, one bullet." Protesters burnt American and Israeli flags and carried two boys dressed up as suicide bombers.[45]

Members of COSATU, the ANC Youth League, and even the South African Council of Churches have frequently participated in marches organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee and Qibla. Several have signed memoranda calling Israel an "illegitimate, terrorist state, racist, expansionist and chauvinistic, [with] no right to exist" and made progressively more anti-Israel statements over the past years.[46] COSATU's president, Willie Madisha, declared in 2006 that the "apartheid Israel state" was worse than apartheid South Africa.[47]

The most striking example was the wave of mass anti-Israel protests during the Durban World Conference Against Racism in 2001. Several months ahead of the conference, UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson allowed the last of the preliminary meetings to be held in Tehran, Iran. This meant that no Israeli delegates could attend, due to Iran's discriminatory visa policies, allowing the Muslim states a free hand to rewrite the agenda for the event.

In the run-up to the conference, COSATU and the ANC held local "conferences against racism" which closely followed the anti-Israel agenda. At the start of the conference, anti-Israel groups organized a 15,000-person march through the streets of Durban. Radical Muslim groups handed protesters from the Durban Social Forum and local anti-privatization groups free flags, kaffiyehs, antisemitic literature, signs of Stars of David dripping with blood, and T-shirts with slogans such as "Free Palestine." In this way, they hijacked the South African left as well as the conference.

COSATU's president, Willie Madisha, declared in 2006 that the "apartheid Israel state" was worse than apartheid South Africa

Islamist radicalism is also a rallying cry for leftists and populists in the ANC. One faction of the ANC in the North-West province which supports Jacob Zuma, the current ANC President, calls itself the Taliban to present a more radical image. On several occasions, COSATU has marched against privatization and other ANC policies carrying "Viva Arafat" placards. Elements of the ANC have therefore been able to incorporate anti-Israel motifs into the context of domestic opposition towards, and protests against, government policies and its poor service delivery record.

Overall, pushing the Israel-apartheid analogy has, politically, served Muslim groups well. It has also suited the ANC because it is one of the only inroads to the elusive "colored" vote (a term which refers to those of mixed-race background and also includes Muslims of Malay descent). It has drawn them closer to the ruling ANC and offered them the chance to present their religious struggle as a just cause. Meanwhile the ANC stands to gain from antisemitism in closely contested local elections against the Democratic Alliance, a party which was until recently led by a Jew, Tony Leon.

It is perhaps no accident that recorded acts of antisemitism have risen dramatically as South Africa has shifted its policies toward Israel. As recently as 2005, Jewish community leader Zev Krengel could boast that South Africa had "significantly lower rates of antisemitism than exist in...other Diaspora countries."[48] Yet 2006 set a new record for antisemitic incidents in South Africa.[49]

Bullying Minority Groups

In contrast to the way the government treats the Muslim community, it tends to bully other minorities that vote for opposition parties in greater proportions. One example is the Portuguese community, which was excoriated by Minister of Safety and Security Steve Tshwete for marching to the Union Buildings to protest against crime in 2000. Rather than promising to do more for victims of crime, the minister wrote the community an acrimonious letter, stating:
Some among the Portuguese community you claim to represent came to this country because they did not accept that the Mozambican and Angolan people should gain their freedom and independence from Portuguese colonialism...These came here because they knew that the colour of their skin would entitle them to join `the master race,' to participate in the oppression and exploitation of the black majority and to enjoy the benefits of white minority domination. It is perhaps because you have not outgrown these white supremacist ideas and practices that you wrote your memorandum.[50]

The letter crudely blamed Portuguese South Africans for complicity in apartheid and disloyalty to the new South Africa. The effect of the letter was to warn all organized minority groups that they did not belong and had no right to oppose ANC policy.

Later that year, white left-wing activists close to the ANC launched an initiative called the "Home for All" Campaign. The centerpiece of the Campaign was "The Declaration of Commitment by White South Africans." [51] Whites were asked to sign the declaration to admit collective "responsibility for apartheid" and "commit ourselves to redress these wrongs ... through individual and collective action.[52]

The ANC launched another similar initiative the following year. Ronnie Kasrils wrote up a declaration arguing for a two-state solution but rejecting Zionism and blaming Israel solely for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He encouraged Jews to sign it, pronouncing that most Jewish anti-apartheid activists "were in fact anti-Zionists and rejected Zionism because they believed in a common humanity and that there should not be an exclusive state...". [53] The subtext of the campaign was to offer Jews a deal: give up on Zionism and you can become part of the new South Africa.

The Tshwete letter to the Portuguese community, the "Home for All" campaign, and Kasrils' declaration all implied that minority groups were collectively responsible for apartheid and that they would have no place in the new South Africa until they made amends. The campaigns put pressure on minority groups to demonstrate their loyalty to the ANC by suppressing their complaints and stepping in line with ANC ideology and policy.

The subtext of the campaign was to offer Jews a deal: give up on Zionism and you can become part of the new South Africa

Although the vast majority of Jews still vote for the centrist opposition, the Democratic Alliance, the ANC's cooption of the organized Jewish community has been largely successful. The Board issues the occasional statement criticizing the ANC, but for the most part it has become the ANC's spokesperson on Jewish affairs and often defends the ANC's stance to the Jewish community.

Partly because of the supine position of the Board, the ANC feels it has a free hand to propagate the Israel-apartheid analogy ever more ardently. Most Jews reject the analogy and several individuals are outspoken critics of the government's stance on Israel, but there is little effective organized Jewish opposition.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.