Saturday, October 27, 2012

Mordechai Kedar: Congratulations to Hamas

by Mordechai Kedar

The visit of the Emir of Qatar to the Gaza Strip is certainly an important landmark on the course that the Hamas movement has been advancing since it took over the Strip in June of 2007. Hamas is trying its utmost to establish the independence of the Gaza Strip, vis à vis the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, Israel, Egypt, the Arab world and everyplace else as well. They are not giving up the ideology of jihad against Israel, but they have temporarily hung it up on the wall, near the trigger finger and the cross-hair, and they busy themselves with building: infrastructures, roads, institutions, the economy, general industry, military industry and military power. All of these we have been considered internal, local matters, and the leaders of the Arab world did not come to give proper respect to the leaders of Hamas. The first that arrived was the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the strongest and most influential person in the Arab world, and perhaps even in the whole world. In his pocket are  many billions, and in his hand is the most weighty and dangerous cudgel that exists today in the Arab world: the al-Jazeera channel, which, ever since it was established towards the end of 1996, has continuously incited the Arab masses against the dictators that ruled them, against Israel, against the United States and against the West in general. al-Jazeera's agenda overlaps that of the Muslim Brotherhood, and everything it has done over the years was aimed toward promoting the Brotherhood to bring them to power in the Arab states, after the dictators were eliminated.

The first success was in Gaza, where Hamas took over more than five years ago. The second success was Tunisia, where the elimination of President bin Ali in January 2011 allowed the Islamist al-Nahda movement to take over the state. But the high point of al-Jazeera's success was, and still is, Egypt.

Sheikh Hamad was the one who pushed NATO to get involved in Libya against Qadhaffi, and brought the Libyan Islamists to the corridors of fragile power in the state of the desert tribes overflowing with oil. Sheikh Hamad is behind the Free Syrian Army, which is a group of Islamist militias who are fighting to remove the heretical 'Alawite regime from Syria and to impose radical Islam upon it.

The visit of Sheikh Hamad in Gaza is a pat on the shoulder to the Hamas people, a shot of legitimacy to their rule, an infusion of 400 million dollars into the budgetary veins and another nail in the coffins of the  PLO and the Palestinian Authority. In the opinion of Sheikh Hamad, King Abbas is dead, long live the new king, Ismail Haniye.

In Israel, they still don't understand what is happening. The state department condemns the Qatari Sheikh's visit in Gaza, because the bleeding hearts of the state department prefer to close matters with the PLO and Abu Mazen, since they still dream that he will deal with Hamas "without the oversight of the Supreme Court or human rights organizations". They fell asleep when the Oslo Accords were signed and still have not awakened.

The Office of the Prime Minister, on the other hand, is quiet and does not react. Apparently they understand the true interests of Israel better: To continue the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority into its components, and to continue the split that Sheikh Hamad very much encouraged with his support of Hamas, to the detriment, of course, of the PLO, the PA and Abu Mazen.

If Israel wants to survive, it must say a
special prayer of thanks to the King of the world for the visit of Sheikh Hamad to Gaza, and it must continue the process of dismantling that Hamas began - also in Judea and Samaria, by establishing seven separate independent emirates in the seven cities: Jericho, Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, Qalqilya and the Arab part of Hebron. Israel must keep the entirety of the rural expanse in its possession, to ensure that the mountains will not become Hamas Mountains and the hills will not become Hizb'Allah Hills. This is how 90 percent of the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria will be free from Israeli rule and Israel will be relieved of including 90 percent of them within its political system, but Israel will keep in its possession more than 90 percent of the territory.

This is the long-term Israeli interest, and thus will Zion be redeemed.

Read more about Dr. Kedar's plan for the Palestinian Emirates


Dr. Kedar is available for lectures in the U.S. and Canada 

Dr. Mordechai Kedar ( is an Israeli scholar of Arabic and Islam, a lecturer at Bar-Ilan University and the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. He specializes in Islamic ideology and movements, the political discourse of Arab countries, the Arabic mass media, and the Syrian domestic arena.

Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav with the permission of the author.

Links to Dr. Kedar's recent articles on this blog:

Source: The article is published in the framework of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar Ilan University, Israel. Also published in Makor Rishon, a Hebrew weekly newspaper.

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

Obama or Romney: Who is Better for Israel?

by Phil Orenstein

Two distinguished and knowledgeable speakers, Dan Fleshler, a media and public affairs strategist in New York City, and Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, trustee of the City University of New York and former FBI foreign counter-intelligence agent, represented the 2012 presidential candidates at the October 14  Israeli Affairs Breakfast at the Reform Temple of Forest Hills. In order to maintain civility the event was billed as a “panel discussion,” not a debate, on the current hot-button issue that is dividing Jewish communities across America.

Lois Silverman, past president of the congregation introduced the speakers and the topic, “Obama or Romney – who is better for Israel,” saying that the U.S. and Israel have an unshakable relationship and that we are looking forward to hearing the speakers clarify the rather puzzling foreign policy positions of both Governor Romney and President Obama. They did the job, as they presented two diametrically opposed political views on the outcome of the election on Israel. The room was packed with an equally balanced audience from the political left to the right.

Dan Flesher started off lambasting Romney’s lack of foreign affairs experience and his dozens of foreign policy advisors vying for his heart and mind, many of whom are the neoconservatives and hawks who got us into the Iraq War. The far better bet for the State of Israel, he argued  is Obama’s “bridge building” approach to broker a secure peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors.

Fleshler has been a longtime American Jewish activist struggling to counteract the powerful influence of AIPAC, America’s leading pro-Israel lobby, and other hawkish groups that he maintains, have a stranglehold on America’s Middle East policies.  He authored “Transforming America’s Israel Lobby – The Limits of Its Power and the Potential for Change” (Potomac Books, May 2009) where he makes the case for a domestic pro-peace political bloc that is both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian, seeking an end to the Israeli “occupation” and envisions a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is a member of J Street’s national Advisory Council and a board member of Americans for Peace Now (APN), groups that share the same vision that the only path to peace is to secure a viable Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, based on the 1967 borders. It should be noted that J Street, partially funded by George Soros, Arab and Muslim Americans and Iranian advocacy organizations, endorsed the Arab and Palestinian sponsored UN resolution to condemn Israel in the UN Security Council which spurred Democratic representatives to cut their ties with J Street.

Although Mitt Romney has pledged to eliminate “daylight” between the United States and Israeli governments, the accusations that Obama is anti-Israel because he has differences with Israeli policies are unfounded, according to Fleshler. Even as Obama seeks to put “daylight” between U.S. and Israel, we need to look at his record in the historical context of his predecessors rebuffing Israel. Past presidents such as Ronald Reagan suspended strategic cooperation with Israel and Gerald Ford sought a reassessment of US-Israeli relations, as did other presidents. However President Obama has delivered more military aid to Israel than any administration including the bunker-busting bombs, which were originally denied by the George W. Bush administration.

Obama has four years of experience in US-Israel relations, to Romney’s zero Fleshler stressed. His Middle East policy informed by notable advisors, maintains that the Israeli-Arab conflict as well as the existential threat involving Iran, cannot be solved without US engagement, in order to breach the differences between both sides. Both Israel and the Arab states will have to make concessions and tone down anti-Semitic rhetoric. Obama continues to pursue this bridge-building approach, the path laid out by Bill Clinton, the best template to resolve the Middle East conflicts without resorting to war. The Right has no answers and Fleshler stated that we can only hope and guess as to what Romney will do for Israel.

He compared the presidential candidates’ Middle East policies to two different treatment options of cancer specialists. One way is to cut out the cancer by drastic surgery, hoping the patient lives. The other option is the more diligent, painstaking approach, a step by step process treating the cancer by all therapeutic treatments available until the cancer goes into remission. Fleshler indicated that the former is Romney’s radical approach, while the later is Obama’s conscientious approach, which is best for Israel. The cancer specialist who doesn’t give up is the best way to save the patient.

The next speaker, Jeff Wiesenfeld delivered a clarion call to all American Jews to learn the lessons of our 2000 year history in the diaspora, from persecution and pogroms to the Holocaust, and apply it to the present when the State of Israel faces the prospect of extinction, in order to cast an informed vote for the presidential candidate who will be best prepared to protect Israel. Wiesenfled’s parents as well as his in-laws were Holocaust survivors, so when he speaks out in defense of Israel, it’s from the depths of his soul. On countless occasions he has stood up courageously as a Jewish warrior, the Maccabee of our age to defend the State of Israel and confront rabid anti-Semitism head-on regardless of the fear of repercussions or the straightjacket of political correctness, which renders more timid souls to perpetual silence.

Wiesenfeld delved in the history of the Jewish people discussing the plight of Gypsies, stateless wanderers, in order to help visualize the importance of our historic connection to Israel. Before we had a Jewish national homeland we were defenseless wanderers, like Gypsies who had no home, no state and no respect, and who are irrelevant today. We were powerless and vulnerable, but who could believe the prospect of the extermination of six million Jews? Wiesenfeld lamented in righteous indignation that the world did not “set a red line.”

Today the president of Iran threatens to “wipe Israel off the map.” But the difference today, Wiesenfeld admonished, is that there will be no “retail” Holocaust. One bomb is all that is necessary for instantaneous annihilation, all dead, rather than the Nazi’s systematic extermination process of 10,000 per day.

Today we need to set a “red line” for Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran is just as deadly fanatical as Nazi Germany. Before World War II, Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky warned the Polish Jews to believe Hitler; the volcano is erupting and the time is short for them to be spared. 

Ahmadinejad, like Hitler, means what he says. He means to destroy the Jewish State. Iran has determined to develop nuclear weapons and deploy them against Israel, a threat even worse than the Holocaust. Germany had at least 70 million sympathetic to the Nazis, while 150 million Muslims are sympathetic to the jihadist terrorists. This time there will be no repeat of the diaspora. If Israel is destroyed, the Jewish people are finished. Israel is a haven where Jews can go to be safe, a homeland where we’re not vulnerable, and a safe haven to prevent a recurrence of the Holocaust. Without Israel, Jews would have nowhere to turn and would be unwelcome and vulnerable in every country. This means the end of the Jewish people and Judaism.

But as Jews, we are the only people who act against our own interests, Wiesenfeld admonished. He elaborated on the Jews’ historic love affair with the Democratic Party. Early in the last century, there were no answers for the downtrodden Jews of Eastern Europe who faced violent anti-Semitism on a daily basis. Marxism delivered a message of hope for the Jews. Here was an answer to save the Jews from their destiny of continuous persecution as they found a ticket to assimilation and acceptance in hostile societies embracing this new universal faith in the “Brotherhood of Man.” However the communists were no better for the Jews than any other tyrant. When they came to America, Jews all flocked to the Democratic Party, the Party of the downtrodden, taking the tenets of Marxism with them.  They voted for Roosevelt and embraced the labor union movement, the socialist platform, and the New Deal social reforms. Since then Jews have traditionally voted Democratic.

Tradition is the lifeblood of the Jewish people. Tradition held us together as a people through the 2000 year history of persecution in diaspora. But in America, this is one false tradition that should be discarded.  In a free market capitalist society where Jewish immigrants have enjoyed equal opportunities and have prospered, there’s no need to hang on to socialist traditions or the Democrat Party. This point was emphasized by Wiesenfeld’s reminder of the recent Democratic National Convention floor vote, which after three tries followed by boos and jeers, the majority of delegates resolved to reject Jerusalem as Israel’s indivisible capital.  “Those boos were for you! They don’t want your Israel,” he said.

Wiesenfeld blasted Obama’s cheerleading for the “Arab Spring” which turned into a nightmare for Israel. Today’s escalating chaos in the Middle East is the direct outcome of Obama’s foreign policy beginning with his Cairo speech of apologies for America, a show of appeasement to adversaries and weakness to the world. Obama worked against Mubarak, one of our allies, the same way in which Carter worked against the Shah of Iran and ushered in the Iranian Revolution and the tyrannical reign of the ayatollahs. Wiesenfeld fumed that we have an inferior president, an affirmative action president whom Jewish voters helped elect to assuage their guilt. We can’t have four more years of this nightmare for Israel.

During a heated question and answer period which reiterated many of the above points, Wiesenfeld called it “nourishkeit” responding to a question about whether Obama or Romney would be better for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said that the Mideast is in flames and Islamism is on the rise and we are giving the Palestinians money and weapons to fight Israel. It is an irrelevant discussion now since we have no partner for peace. We can only work with partners who really want peace and Israel will never go back to the “Auschwitz borders,” of 1967 as a condition for negotiations. These remarks were greeted with rousing applause.

Fleshler summed up his arguments saying that Obama, while not perfect, is better for Israel’s security, grading him six out of ten points on his foreign policy. Like the cancer specialist who wouldn’t give up, Obama too will never give up trying to bring about negotiations for peaceful solutions, not just sit back like Romney saying it’s impossible. Fleshler claimed that Iran hasn’t made the determination to get nukes and America doesn’t want another war in the Middle East, which would be an all out conflagration worse than anything we’ve seen in Afghanistan or Iraq. Obama is now doing everything to prevent us from getting to that point. Obama’s policies will eventually solve the problem and save Israel. The moderate approach of the middle ground is the answer, not the extremist approach of the right wing settlers who burned down Palestinian olive groves. Fleshler cautioned that we should not trust Romney with his George W. Bush-like policies and his ties to Evangelical Christians. At this point, members of an outraged audience hissed and booed as one person called out “that is a lie” in reference to his remark about the burning of the olive groves, while another said “what about the Fogel family murdered in their sleep?” It has been documented that the destruction of olive groves belonging to Arab farmers have been planned actions executed by Arabs and anarchists seeking to blame Jews.

In his closing remarks, Wiesenfeld affirmed that Israel, America’s greatest ally, is a legitimate issue in this election. He said that giving Obama a grade of six out of ten in foreign policy is a failure in his book. He gives Romney a higher grade for offering superior executive credentials, a different approach to foreign affairs and leadership grounded in reality. Romney’s policies are guided by the fact that there can be no peace talks without true partners for peace. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Saeb Erekat, do not want peace with Israel. There can be no compromises with no one to talk to. The Jewish State faces an unprecedented opportunity for extinction. Romney would not fail to draw the “red line” on Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. The president has done nothing for the State of Israel. He did nothing for the Iranian people when they rose up against Ahmadinejad. Wiesenfeld’s concluded that Jewish voters had to affirm their inviolable connection with Israel and select the man best prepared to deal with the threats to her survival at a critical time when the Middle East is in flames and America’s greatest ally, Israel is in peril.

Phil Orenstein is the Machine Shop Manager at Orics Industries Inc., NY., formerly an adjunct lecturer on Computer Aided Manufacturing at Queensborough Community College. He is a Republican County Committeeman who blogs at and a member of the National Conference on Jewish Affairs. Email:


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

American Infidel

by Eric Allen Bell

If you are an American Infidel, Political Islam wants to kill you, subjugate you or convert you to Islam.  Theses commands are as plain as day in the Islamic scriptures.  And carried out, as reflected in the 20,000-plus acts of Islamic terrorism, just since 9/11 alone.  Fortunately a great many American Muslims do not follow the Quran and they don’t understand it.  But then there are those who do.  As the late Christopher Hitchens once remarked, “If god truly did write the Quran, then clearly he must have been having a bad day.”

My grandfather, a member of the Flying Tigers, was shot down by enemy fire three times during WWII.  As a young man, he was shipped off to places he could barely pronounce, and he did so willingly because he knew his country needed him.  He did not stop to question whether or not he was becoming “too obsessed with negativity” or to consider how taking on this responsibility, to protect his country from tyranny, might inconvenience his lifestyle.

Tragically, such courage and clarity is uncommon among most Americans today.  And to compound matters even worse, most Americans still do not realize we are at war with Political Islam, and they don’t want to hear about it either.  For those of us who do know, it is our responsibility to help inform the rest of the country about what they cannot or will not see.  We can’t give up.

The bitterly ironic and tragic truth is that the charmed lives many of us have inherited from the sacrifices of those brave souls who went before us have made us weak as a nation.  Too many Americans have become cozy, cowardly consumers, deep in debt and mesmerized by the television set.

Meanwhile, some of the most lefty Left of Hollywood have gotten together to produce a mockumentary which will lampoon critics of Islam.  The picture is called “The Muslims Are Coming” and you can watch the trailer here.

Anyway, I have not written this article in order to fixate on the problem, but rather to present some new ideas.  My eyes opened to the reality of Political Islam only recently. It was in the early part of this calendar year of 2012, in fact. I know that I am writing to an audience which includes those who know more about this threat than I do and have been fighting Political Islam for much longer than I have.  So it is with humility that I wish to provide another point of view.

As author Dr. Bill Warner points out at the beginning of nearly every one of his talks, how Muslims worship is their own business.  And he is also quick to point out that less than 20 percent of Islamic scripture concerns itself with religious matters at all.  In fact, Islam asserts itself to be a “complete way of life.”  And Islamic teachings concern themselves more, not with how to worship Allah, but rather how to obey the barbaric Islamic legal system known as the Sharia and with the affairs of the state.  In other words, Islam has religious overtones, but religion is not its primary focus.

Islam is peace.  Not really.  It means submission.  But we keep getting told that Islam means peace.  And the word “peace” in Islam has a very special meaning.  “Peace” is what can only occur once the entire world has finally been forced to submit to Islam.  Recently a “peace” loving follower of Islam tried to blow up the Federal Reserve building in New York.  Fortunately, in spite of extremely aggressive lobbying by Islamic groups such as CAIR to try to get the government to “stop spying on Muslims,” the plot was foiled.  Law enforcement in New York has stopped over a dozen attempted acts of major terrorism since 9/11.  I think it was Robert Spencer who pointed out that “the problem with Islamophobia is that it gets in the way of jihad.”

By now, I probably haven’t told you anything new.  Yet for the vast majority of American Infidels, the truth remains unknown or ignored.  To find the courage required to go where the truth takes you is to risk having to question everything.  When one pulls at a single lose thread, the entire garment could come undone.  Every tightly held belief that makes up a person’s worldview gets called into question.  So it is no wonder that for most people such inquiry about the true nature of Islam will be avoided at all costs.

For me personally, such a process of inquiry only occurred when I was sort of mugged by the truth. As a former liberal blogger and a filmmaker, who had been somewhat immersed in Hollywood culture for a while, perhaps anything short of being mugged by the truth would not have gotten through to me.  I wrote about this in more detail in “The High Price of telling the Truth about Islam.”  But there are other ways to convey to large amounts of people, all at once, the truth about Islam, how it threatens our liberty, and the duty that comes with being an American Infidel.

Liberty allows us to evolve into better versions of ourselves.  Islam, on the other hand, appeals mainly to the darker side of the human psyche.  Liberty is about life and Islam is about death.  When I finally realized that, I felt more than just a responsibility.  I felt something of a calling, to use every available resource at my disposal and to tell the truth about Islam to as many people as I can reach.  Perhaps some of you reading can relate first hand to that feeling.

So let’s talk strategy…

America has engaged in two foreign wars with Islamic countries, numerous drone attacks and the killing of Osama bin Laden.  Prominent counter-jihad organizations lobby on Capitol Hill and boast membership numbers in the hundreds of thousands.  Reports are made public from Washington think tanks publicizing startling data on increased Islamization in America, while remaining dedicated to changing policy as it pertains to our security.  A few brave elected representatives have called for investigations into the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood in American politics – risking their political futures, naming names, and putting it all on the line.  Several very good books on the truth about Islam, and the threat it presents to human rights and liberty, have been written.  Some have even made it to the New York Times best-seller list.  There are several excellent blogs which expose the daily occurrence of jihad and Islamization in the world.  Many of the top counter-jihad bloggers and authors give talks and appear on major network news programs.  And yet, we are not winning this war.

The free world is still being infiltrated slowly, stealthily – death by a thousand cuts.  Under the guise of being “offended” and taking on the “victim” narrative, Islam inserts itself into every opening, every crack in our armor – the UN, European Sharia courts, American schools.  Like a thief in the night it slips in, slowly changing the character of America to suit its long-range objectives – to impose its designs on a civilization of distracted infidels.  And it’s working.

There have been consequences – measurable and identifiable – to us Infidels for ignoring the growing threat of Political Islam in America.  Most notably, co-conspirators in the largest FBI bust of an Islamic “charity” funneling millions of US dollars to Islamic terrorists are now the largest Islamic lobbying organization in America.  How did that happen?  They call themselves the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and are often granted unprecedented access to FBI files.  Clearly some of our so-called “leaders” have put the fox in charge of guarding the henhouse.

CAIR continues to dominate the narrative in the mainstream media.  And to make matters so much worse, Islamo-bullies, at the forefront of forming a new global Islamic caliphate, can count on the continued apologies and appeasement from our cowardly commander-in-chief.  The Taliban is inside the building.  And America is sound asleep.

So what will it take to win this war?

We cannot even begin to change policy until we have a solid foundation.  And that foundation is broad public awareness and support.  We need the support of the American public – and we do not yet have it.  To continue to build without a solid foundation of public awareness and support is to build in the mud.  What we build in the mud will collapse.  We must be realistic that a solid foundation is still being built, but is far from complete.   In fact, it seems at all too often, CAIR (Hamas in America) is there to remove a new brick as soon as we lay a brick down.  This pattern must come to an end.  We need to fight back and we need to fight back harder.

So what is the solution?  You are looking at it right now if you are reading these words off a screen.  From the beginnings of human civilization, people have looked at a flickering light and listened to stories.  This is a part of who we are.  It’s as if this is part of our DNA.

That the flickering light has evolved from a fireplace to televisions, movie screens, computers, phones, iPads and laptops is a minor detail.  One of the primary ways that human beings seek to make sense of the world we are in is by looking into the flickering light while we are told stories.  Today, the power of the image on screen is an incredibly powerful force.  It is often more effective than armies, laws and lectures at universities.

For better or for worse, media shape our collective reality.  They model our behavior.  Media have the power to embed thoughts into our unconscious mind – positing ideas that are hard to remove.  We are a media-driven society.  The collective consciousness of the American psyche can be seen in the flickering pixels of TV screens, and on the silver screen, on every type of screen across the country.  And although media are sometimes our Achilles’ heel, they also have the potential to be America’s great hidden power.

So how specifically can media combat the growing threat of Political Islam?  It doesn’t really happen on C-SPAN.  Well, maybe a little bit, for those rare individuals who have a C-SPAN attention span.  Rather, media messages penetrate into the minds of the comfortable consumer, sitting passively with a tub of popcorn in his lap.  And our counter-jihad movement does not really have this base covered as well as we could – not even close.  Meanwhile, some of the most lefty Left have gotten together to produce an upcoming documentary which lampoons anyone who dares to criticize Islam.  “The Muslims Are Coming” is in post-production now and will be out soon.

(And yes, the title “The Muslims Are Coming” is the same as the slogan for – the terrorist spin-control network.)

Every filmmaker in Hollywood knows that they are actually in the emotional transportation business.  And to the extent that Hollywood has an agenda, those who make movies also are well aware that when a person is emotionally moved, they often change their views.  It often seems to me that most Americans think with their emotions, and we need to start “speaking into their listening.”

Remember, America used media to great effect during World War II.  Many people came to understand the threat, and what was being asked of them, through black and white news reels shown before movies.  These days, sociopathic elements within Hollywood use media to drag our entire culture down to the lowest common denominator every single day.  In fact some days I wonder if the entire country has become a never-ending episode of the Jerry Springer Show.  But I’m not going to go down that road right now.

Hamas-CAIR uses media effectively.  They have created a widely accepted but false narrative, which says that Islam is simply misunderstood.  CAIR has successfully distorted reality so badly that Islam in America is now seen as the victim and not for what it is – the victimizer.  Remember, Islam means “peace.”  But then again, the media can define that term however it chooses.

So, moving out of problem mode and into solution mode here is how I see it.   The fact that many readers will not make it to this part of the article, about 2,000 words in, demonstrates my point perfectly.  We must add to our arsenal emotionally-driven media that are very, very captivating, entertaining, sometimes sensational, always truthful, and hard to turn off, walk away from or forget.  In fact, they must change minds.  Minds are often changed in relation to emotion.  The media business is the business of emotional transportation.  Stories and emotions change minds.

There are a few Muhamamd bio pics in the development that I know about.  And there have already been a few good documentaries which expose Islam and its dirty little secrets.  But what I would like to produce is a personal, story-driven documentary, which tells the tale of how one person can have their entire worldview turned upside down – in essence the high price of telling the truth about Islam – my story:  how a filmmaker sets out to make a documentary which exposes “Islamophobia” and ends up learning the real truth about Islam.

By the way, few people realize this, but a lot of liberals pick up a copy of the latest book by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck just for a guilty pleasure.  Indulgence into a guilty pleasure on home video is nothing new and not going to go away.  The likelihood of someone watching a documentary at home just to see the raging “Islamophobe” as a guilty pleasure runs very high.  I’m not a raging “Islamophobe,” but they don’t know that yet.

For a book on Islam to hit the New York Times best-seller list, it only has to reach possibly a few hundred thousand people.  But a documentary that has only reached a million or two people is not considered a blockbuster.  Not even close.  And yet, it reaches millions of people.

The documentaries one sees on the top 10 lists of Netflix, Amazon and iTunes are a whole new kind of storytelling.  They are “infotainment” – personal stories which advance a specific point of view or ask a specific question.  This is why Michael Moore’s movies do so well, why “Exit Through the Gift Shop” was popular even among people who could care less about the art world, why “The Secret” was a home video blockbuster, even though most of what’s in it is complete bullshit.  Imagine the power of a story that is actually true and worth telling.

The public has an insatiable appetite for using the image on screen to make them feel angry, inspired, shocked, sad, surprised and so on.  There is a science to screenwriting in this fashion to yield these results.  And making a documentary is fairly inexpensive.  As of the time this article was written, “Obama 2016” is the number one documentary on iTunes.  Dinesh D’Souza is reaching millions of people, and he is not just preaching to the choir.

The people whom I’ve exposed in some of my articles might have helped several Pakistani newspapers, accidentally on purpose, name me as the filmmaker behind “The Innocence of Muslims,” the YouTube video that’s become such a riot – literally.  Someone is trying to shut me up.

I have had to take the same security measures as if I had made that movie, and that is how it occurred to me that I might as well go ahead and make one –  only much better and much more effective.  And when that movie gets released, if followers of Islam feel the need to riot, they will.  But they cannot riot all day, every day.  And after their childish tantrum is over, for offending their delicate sensibilities, my movie will still be available.  People will still be learning about Islam in America, the truth about CAIR, the truth about a few terror-tied mosques, the truth about the Muslim Brotherhood in America and so much more.  They might even learn something about themselves.

Truth is the enemy of Islamic supremacy.  And nothing angry Islamists will do can stop the movie “American Infidel” from being seen.  I already have 300+ hours of footage from the documentary I started making two years ago titled “Not Welcome.”  That I halted production and did an ideological about-face when it comes to so-called “Islamophobia” is a story unto itself.  And that is the story I wish to tell.

When the self-proclaimed “prophet” of Islam wrote the Quran (if he even existed at all) one thing he did not count on was the information age.  Why are the Taliban fighting so hard to stop girls from going to school?  The enemy of Islam is truth.

So I am building a movement.  So far this movement has 330 million members, only most of them don’t realize it yet.  They don’t know they’re members.  They don’t understand what it means to be an American Infidel.  I intend to change that.  I hope you will join me.  Check out the website for the movie and let us continue to expand our effort in changing minds on a large scale, while we still can.  So much is at stake and we need to fight the battle against Islamization on every front possible.  We must fight against the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Hamas, ISNA, ICNA, the MSA and every other Islamic jihadist front group that tries to sink its hooks into the fabric of America.  Truth is the enemy of Islamic supremacy.  Use it.

Eric Allen Bell


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

PC in the Military Establishment

by Sam Holliday

On 25 October 2012 Defense Secretary Panetta said that he and top military commanders "felt very strongly" that deploying American forces to defend against the attack  in Benghazi, Libya was too risky because what was happening on the ground was unclear. Panetta added "the basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on." For those of us who have been in combat this rings hollow, since we remember many times we have gone into the unknown to protect our comrades in danger.

There is another explanation for this failure to deploy military assets to Benghazi just as soon as the attack was known, i.e. within the first hour of a seven hour battle. Was it because of political correctness regarding Islam at the higher echelons of the military establishment? Was it because the administration did not want to use military forces near the end of a political campaign? These possibilities need to be analyzed and corrected as warranted.

Currently our political elite (including the top echelons of the military) and the foreign policy establishment (including academe and think tanks) have accepted the false premise that the only threat comes from "extremists" seeking to hijack Islam and therefore from "terrorists associated with al-Qaeda". They see Islam as "a noble religion, and a religion of peace." They make no distinction between the inner jihad (which is a religion to help individuals struggle against baser instincts) and the outer jihad (which is a sociopolitical ideology of submission just as evil as other totalitarian ideologies we have faced in the past).

Today most military commanders have been promoted based upon their ability to manage personnel, equipment, and money for conventional war, including how the armed forces were used in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have little interest in, and avoid, ideological struggles and strategic communication--the critical mass of Irregular  Warfare.  Those in the very top of the military establishment are selected because they are "team players", not because they are willing to "tell truth to power". 

Much of our political elite, and the foreign policy establishment, reject anyone who thinks the Third Jihad is inherently a threat, that the outer jihad is inherently incompatible with the US Constitution, or that Islam is a holistic, totalitarian ideology rather than a religion like Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. They do not accept the original meaning of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution or Article VI para 3 prohibition on "religious tests" for public office. 

Also the political elite is too heavily dependent upon exports of energy products from the Middle East to acknowledge the truth. Decades of very clever Saudi-Wah'abi funding, propaganda and subversion have given our leaders a benign impression of Islam.  

Sam Holliday


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

Turkey in the Syrian Crisis: What Next?

by Veli Sirin

But Erdogan is, to many, no more than an impotent, tantrum-prone, and dangerous demagogue – which the Obama administration and other "concerned powers" will not admit. Presumptions that he can act consequently to rescue the Syrian people are mistaken.
Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad treats Turkish military reprisals as pin-pricks. Nonetheless, while massacres continue inside Syria, confrontations and counterblows proliferate along the country's border with Turkey, including exchanges of mortar-shell fire. But how long will this stalemate continue?

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in his public comments, is addicted to candor, if not bluster. He condemns the weakness of the United Nations in the face of the Syrian bloodletting, yet is even more dismayed, it seems, to realize that Turkey cannot wage war on the Al-Assad regime. Turkey cannot save Syria; it cannot march to Damascus; it cannot remove the Al-Assad state apparatus, and it cannot reconstruct Syria as a Turkish protectorate.

The Syrian Army is a significant military force, and would respond with a wholesale offensive, devastating poor Turkish villages. The Syrian war is spreading into Lebanon; its extension northward could produce a general conflagration in the area.

For these reasons, and not out of sympathy for the Syrian tyrant, the overwhelming majority of Turks oppose a military campaign against Damascus. The Turkish political opposition calls on Erdogan to renounce his bellicose rhetoric. Turkey will, it is hoped, avoid a war with Syria, even as Erdogan postures as a great military figure and proposes a "vision" for resolution of the crisis.

Erdogan tours the Middle East and in many places is applauded. This, of course, increases his popularity at home. Arab sympathy for Erdogan most likely reflects his adoption of an anti-Israeli stance. He has also called for Islamic unity. "Brotherhood" and "community" are the pillars on which Erdogan has constructed his project for a Muslim-dominated Mediterranean.

Turkish "neo-Ottomanism," combining Islamist supremacy with patriotic fervor, is not limited to Ankara's initiatives in foreign policy. Erdogan's Justice and Development Party, or AKP, has made Ottoman nostalgia a central feature of Turkish cultural life.

Examples of this attitude are plentiful. With an AKP municipal government, Istanbul every year now celebrates May 29, commemorating the conquest of the city by Sultan Mehmed II in 1453. In 2010, Istanbul considered itself the "European Capital of Culture," and the budget for the program emphasized renovation of Ottoman architectural sites. Istanbul no longer projects itself only as a bridge between east and west, but as the center of Ottoman civilization. None of these developments is reassuring.

NATO, in an urgent meeting on the Syrian disaster in June, declared clear support for Turkey. The hurriedly-assembled NATO ambassadors described Syrian attacks on the Turkish frontier as a breach of international law and a menace to regional security. But NATO concluded diffidently, "As indicated on June 26, the alliance is monitoring closely the Syrian situation."

The U.S. promised to support Turkey. Tommy Vietor, National Security Council spokesperson, said late last year, "We continue to call on other governments to join the chorus of condemnation and pressure against the Assad regime so that the peaceful and democratic aspirations of the Syrian people can be realized. President Obama has coordinated closely with Prime Minister Erdogan throughout the crisis in Syria and will continue to do so going forward." The U.S. appealed to Al-Assad to step down from power, agree to an armistice in the fighting, and initiate a political transition.

After Turkey forced a Syrian passenger aircraft to land in Ankara on October 10, German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle visited his Turkish counterpart, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, in Istanbul. Westerwelle placed his country unambiguously on the side of Turkey. The German representative declared, "Under international law, Turkey must not tolerate transport through their airspace of weapons or military supplies to Syria." In a similar case, with a violation of German airspace, said his government would have done the same thing. "Turkey is our partner," Westerwelle added, "and they can count on our solidarity."

The German foreign minister, however, distanced Germany from Erdogan's harsh criticism of the UN Security Council, which Erdogan has said should be reformed, as at present two permanent members, Russia and China, possess veto power over any action on Syria.

Erdogan repeats to the world that a humanitarian disaster is taking place in Syria. "If we wait for one or two of the [UN Security Council's] permanent members... then the future of Syria will be in danger," he insists. But his opinion is not supported by most of the rest of the world. Erdogan, in an October 13 speech in Istanbul, invoked the Balkan tragedy that occurred two decades ago. "How sad is," he said, "that the UN is as helpless today as it was 20 years ago, when it watched the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people in the Balkans."

No one can predict where all this oratory will end up. It is only certain that there are victims on both sides of the Turkish-Syrian border, and in the conflict inside Syria. Since the beginning of October, the Turkish army has directed fire at 87 locations inside Syria, and has killed at least 12 Syrian soldiers, according to a report based on Turkish military sources, and published in the Turkish daily Milliyet on October 20. The paper stated that Syria had launched mortar rounds or other shells across the border 27 times, and that in the Turkish response, five Syrian tanks, three armored vehicles, one mortar, one ammunition transporter and two anti-aircraft guns were destroyed, with many more military vehicles damaged.

The Europeans tend to their own affairs, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council negotiate among themselves, Turkey claims it is considering unilateral action against Syria. But Erdogan is, to many, no more than an impotent, tantrum-prone, and dangerous demagogue – which the Obama administration and other "concerned powers" will not publicly admit. Some say that notwithstanding a possible Erdogan strategy for the establishment of Syria as a Sunni Islamist ally – or vassal – of an AKP-led Turkey, he and his party are needed for any positive action by NATO against Al-Assad. But presumptions that he can act consequently to rescue the Syrian people are mistaken. And the rest of us can only wait and hope for the best.

Veli Sirin


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

CAIR Features Imam with Ties to Hamas

by Joe Kaufman

What kind of message is CAIR sending to the community, Muslim and non-Muslim alike?
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, founded in 1994 by operatives from Hamas, this month continued its tradition of embracing individuals with ties to terrorist organizations, such as Mousa Abu Marzouk and Yusuf al Qaradawi, by featuring, as the speaker for the annual banquet of its Florida chapter, Kifah Mustapha, an imam from Chicago, whom the U.S. government has named a party to Hamas financing.

In November 2008, a federal jury found the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and five of its leaders guilty of "providing material support and resources to a terrorist organization." That organization was Hamas, and the money raised for it by HLF was in the millions. HLF was shut down by the FBI in December 2001.

Besides the five persons found guilty in the HLF trial, the U.S. Justice Department listed a number of other individuals who had been considered involved in the conspiracy but whom the government chose not to indict ("unindicted co-conspirators"), among whom was Kifah Mustapha.

At the time of the trial, Mustapha was an imam at the Mosque Foundation, a Chicago-area Mosque, itself a hub for Palestinian terror-related activity. A Hamas operative and one of the founders of CAIR, Rafiq Jaber, has acted as president and spokesman of the Mosque Foundation. The mosque has held fundraisers for different terrorist conduits, including the HLF and Palestinian Islamic Jihad's [PIJ] co-founder, Sami al-Arian, indicted in 2003 for "contributing services" for the benefit of a "specially designated terrorist" organization, PIJ. Mustapha is still an imam at the Mosque, as well as being the Mosque's associate director.

Also at the time of the trial, Mustapha was listed as the Registered Agent of the Illinois corporation of HLF -- as he still is today.

None of this has seemed to faze CAIR, which was also named a co-conspirator in that trial. CAIR had told people on the homepage of its official website to donate money to HLF. The group appeared more than happy to have Mustapha participate at its 12th annual South Florida banquet held on October 6, 2012.

In addition, the Chicago chapter of CAIR has had Mustapha participate at a number of its functions, as well, including joint events with the Mosque Foundation. However, as CAIR and the Mosque Foundation have close relations, it makes perfect sense for CAIR to invite Kifah Mustapha to give a speech at its banquet.

Further, according to CAIR-Florida's Facebook page, one of the attendees to the banquet was Bassem Alhalabi, a director of a radical mosque in Boca Raton, Florida. In June 2003, Alhalabi was found guilty by the U.S. Commerce Department of illegally shipping military equipment to Syria.

One would think that CAIR would be concerned about its group featuring someone named in a Hamas fundraising trial to help raise money at its annual banquet. What kind of message is CAIR sending to the community, Muslim and non-Muslim alike?

As CAIR's joint co-founder, Omar Ahmad, put it, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant." [Encyclopedia of Islam in the United States, Vol. 1, p. 167]. 

Joe Kaufman is a former candidate for United States Congress. He is an expert in the fields of counter-terrorism, foreign affairs and energy independence for America.

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

At UN Human Rights Council, Will U.S. Go Down with the Ship?

by Seth Mandel

One of the reasons the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement has had trouble gaining adherents is that everyone knew the movement would never just target Jews. It would begin with Israel, but surely expand to anyone deemed insufficiently hostile to Israeli companies.

And soon enough it did so, targeting American companies such as Caterpillar, which makes the type of tractor that hit Rachel Corrie, a pro-Palestinian activist attempting to shield terrorists’ weapons smuggling tunnels from the Israeli military. Since Corrie was attempting to aid those who wanted to kill Israeli civilians, you would think a “social justice” movement would spare Caterpillar its ire. But that’s not how BDS works. And so it is not surprising that such a movement has found a stalwart ally in the United Nations, an organization dedicated to protecting the world’s worst human rights violators while relentlessly targeting the Jewish state.

When the UN went looking for a special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories who embodied the world agency’s values, they settled on Richard Falk, a 9/11 truther who compared Israel to Nazi Germany. Falk hasn’t disappointed, and his latest stunt was to expand his brand of economic warfare against the Jewish state to America. Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported on Falk’s belligerent threats against American companies:
“The costs to companies and businesses of failing to respect international humanitarian law are considerable,” the report warns, “including damage to a company’s public image, impact on shareholder decisions and share price and could result in employees being criminally responsible for rights abuses.”
The report warns American employees of targeted companies that they face legal risks.
“Employees of companies can face investigation and prosecution for human rights violations committed irrespective of where the violation was committed.”
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, got it only half right in her response:
“Throughout his tenure as Special Rapporteur, Mr. Falk has been highly biased and made offensive statements, including outrageous comments on the 9/11 attacks,” Rice said. “Mr. Falk’s recommendations do nothing to further a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and indeed poison the environment for peace. His continued service in the role of a UN Special Rapporteur is deeply regrettable and only damages the credibility of the UN.”
But credibility is not what the dictators’ playground is looking for. (Falk does hold an emeritus professorship at Princeton, so perhaps the prestigious university’s credibility is done continued harm by its association with Falk.) But Rice gets it wrong with respect to the UN. Falk’s report is for the UN’s Human Rights Council, a historically and notoriously anti-Israel committee. The administration of George W. Bush made the decision to withdraw from the council when it was clear it could not and would not be reformed. But President Obama rejoined the council in an attempt to round out his administration’s new focus on doing the opposite of whatever George Bush did.

Falk doesn’t harm the UN’s credibility. Just the opposite. The UNHRC eats away at America’s credibility by our continued participation in an explicitly anti-Israel “human rights” group that can put America’s name on its hateful work. John Bolton put it best when he said the Obama administration’s decision to join the council when it did was “like getting on board the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg.” And now Rice is scolding the iceberg when she should be heading for a lifeboat.

Seth Mandel


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

Report: Help in Benghazi was Available, Waved Off

by Max Boot

Earlier today I wrote about the baffling failure to call in the U.S. military to rescue our diplomats besieged in Benghazi. That failure becomes even more puzzling if this Fox News article is right. Reporter Jennifer Griffin writes that former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were working as CIA security personnel at a CIA annex not far from the consulate, and they not only saw the entire attack unfold, but communicated what they saw to Washington in real time.

They wanted to aid the diplomats at the consulate but were told to “stand down”; they ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate and brought back the remaining diplomats, minus the ambassador, who was already dead. Then they took more fire at the CIA annex–this was where Woods and Doherty were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m., nearly seven hours after the initial assault began. But their urgent cries for help were not answered. Griffin writes:
In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Specter gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours — enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.
This would seem to directly contradict Defense Secretary Leon Panetta’s contention that the Pentagon knew too little about what was going on to scramble military forces. As does this tidbit from Griffin’s article: “Fox News has learned that there were two military surveillance drones redirected to Benghazi shortly after the attack on the Consulate began. They were already in the vicinity. The second surveillance craft was sent to relieve the first drone, perhaps due to fuel issues. Both were capable of sending real time visuals back to U.S. officials in Washington, D.C.”

Assuming this account is accurate, it is downright mystifying–and alarming–that in spite of real-time knowledge about the assault as it was happening, and the presence only a short flight time away of considerable military resources, someone in the government (one wonders who?) decided to limit the response to sending 22 lightly armed personnel from Tripoli. Someone at a senior level needs to be held to account for this failure.

Max Boot


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

Humanitarian Hypocrisy

by Raymond Ibrahim

Muslim Turks care about American Indians, and U.S. Protestants care about Muslim Palestinians—but no one cares about persecuted Christians
The world's double standards concerning which peoples qualify as oppressed and deserving of help are staggering. Two recent stories illustrate this point:
First, a report exposed, in the words of the Turkish Coalition of America, "Turkey's continued interest in expanding business and cultural ties with the American Indian community" and "Turkey's interest in building bridges to Native American communities across the U.S." Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., even introduced a bill that would give Turks special rights and privileges in Native American tribal areas, arguing that "[t]his bill is about helping American Indians," and about "helping the original inhabitants of the new world, which is exactly what this legislation would do."

The very idea that Turkey's Islamist government is interested in "helping American Indians" is preposterous, both from a historical and contemporary point of view. In the 15th century, when Christian Europeans were discovering the Americas, Muslim Turks were conquering and killing Christians in Europe (which, of course, is why Europeans starting sailing west in the first place). If early European settlers fought and killed natives, only recently, Turkey committed a mass genocide against Armenian Christians. And while the U.S. has made many reparations to its indigenous natives, Turkey not only denies the Armenian holocaust, but still abuses and persecutes its indigenous Christians.

In short, if Turkey is looking to help the marginalized and oppressed, it should start at home.

But of course, Turkey is only looking to help itself; the American Indians are mere tools of infiltration. One need not elaborate on the dangers involved in thousands of Muslim Turks settling in semi-autonomous areas in America and working closely with a minority group that holds a grudge against the United States.

Yet if one can understand Turkey's machinations, what does one make of another recent report? Fifteen leaders from U.S. Christian denominations—mostly Protestant, including the Lutheran, Methodist, and UCC Churches—are asking Congress to reevaluate U.S. military aid to Israel, since "military aid will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel's military occupation of the Palestinian territories."

These are the same church leaders who utter nary a word concerning the rampant persecution of millions of Christians from one end of the Muslim world to the other—a persecution that makes the Palestinians' situation insignificant in comparison.

If Muslims are subjugated on Israeli land, at least one can argue that, historically, the Jews were there first—millennia before Muslims conquered Jerusalem in the 7th century. On the other hand, millions of Christians—at least 10 million in Egypt alone, the indigenous Copts—have been suffering in their own homelands for 14 centuries, since Islam burst in with the sword.

Nor is this limited to history: from Nigeria in the west, to Pakistan in the east, Christians at this very moment are being imprisoned for apostasy and blasphemy; their churches are being bombed and burned down; their women and children are being kidnapped, enslaved, and raped. For an idea, see my monthly Muslim Persecution of Christians series, where I collate dozens of anecdotes of persecution every month—any of which, if Palestinians experienced, would make headlines around the world; but as it is only "unfashionable" Christians who are experiencing these atrocities, they are regularly overlooked.

Nor are Palestinian Christians immune from this phenomenon: a pastor recently noted that "animosity towards the Christian minority in areas controlled by the PA continues to get increasingly worse. People are always telling [Christians], Convert to Islam. Convert to Islam."

Indeed, the American Jewish Committee, which was "outraged by the Christian leaders' call," got it right by saying: "When religious liberty and safety of Christians across the Middle East are threatened by the repercussions of the Arab Spring, these Christian leaders have chosen to initiate a polemic against Israel, a country that protects religious freedom and expression for Christians, Muslims and others."

By any objective measure, the atrocities currently being committed against Christians around the Muslim world are far more outrageous and deserving of attention and remedy than the so-called "Palestinian Question." Incidentally, Israeli treatment of the Palestinians—some of whom, like Hamas, openly declare their intent to eradicate the Jewish state—is largely predicated on the aforementioned: Israel knows Islam's innate animus for non-Muslims and does not wish to be on its receiving end, hence the measures it takes to exist.

There is a final important point of irony concerning the differences between Turkey's Muslims and America's liberal Christians: the former engage in hypocrisy to empower Islam; the latter engage in hypocrisy to disempower Christianity, even if unwittingly. Just like secular/liberal Americans who strive to disassociate themselves from their European heritage—seeing it as the root of all evil and championing the rights of non-whites like American Indians—liberal American Christians strive to disassociate themselves from their Christian heritage and champion the rights of non-Christians, hence their keen interest for Muslim Palestinians.

And all the while, the one religious group truly persecuted from one end of the Islamic world to the other—Christians—are devoutly ignored by the humanitarian hypocrites. 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum


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