Important study shows that a small network is fostering widespread hatred of Islam inside US politics and public opinion

Israel/Palestine
on 103 Comments

islamophobia network21

Graphic from Paul Woodward.

On Friday, the Center for American Progress published an important and excellent study, called Fear, Inc: The roots of the Islamophobia network in the US. The study shows that the wave of Islamophobia in the U.S. –Americans mistrust Muslims more than they did even after 9/11– is the product of a few energized individuals. And they’re polluting our political discourse.

Specifically, it’s a handful of exponents of Islamophobia, among them Daniel Pipes, Sharia-law “expert” David Yerushalmi (whom the NYT profiled in more neutral terms a couple weeks back), David Horowitz, and Steve Emerson, the CNN expert turned wingnut.

And the Center shows that they are getting money from just a few sources, but a ton of money at that. In short, a conspiracy, and an important one. You can’t call it a conspiracy these days, it’s a “network,” or as Steve Walt says below, a “collaboration.”

I’ll get to excerpts of the report below, but the report recapitulates the history of neoconservatism. Recall that the Iraq war crusade was implanted into the American discourse in the ’90s by the decided and earnest effort of a few true believers, backed by tons of money, who had a crazed theory of importing democracy to the Middle East by gunpoint, everywhere but in Israel/Palestine. And those beliefs soon swept the mainstream.

I’m hopeful that Islamophobia won’t be so successful, and partly because the Center for American Progress has risen against it. 

The report is careful to sidestep the Israel-motivation angle of the Islamophobes. I think this is intellectually irresponsible, but inevitable. No one in the Establishment wants to touch this angle. They don’t want to be sounding like Walt and Mearsheimer, the Israel lobby. And of course, it’s good that a portion of the Establishment is denouncing the ultra-Zionists. But supporting Israel is certainly an important part of the motivation, as I pointed out about Yerushalmi a few weeks back– the Jewish right to Palestine is at the heart of his engagement, he even changed his name to Jerusalem. And donor Aubrey Chernick, whom the report focuses on — well, again, Israel support is at the heart of his public actions.

Here are two quick takes on the report. Steve Walt at Foreign Policy:

The irony in all this that the extremists examined in this report have gone to great lengths to convince Americans that there is a vast Islamic conspiracy to subvert American democracy, impose sharia law, and destroy the American way of life. Instead, what we are really facing is a well-funded right-wing collaboration to scare the American people with a bogeyman of their own creation, largely to justify more ill-advised policies in the Middle East.

And Ed Lasky at American Thinker points out the Jewishness of the list, though he leaves out the fact that George Soros is also Jewish:

The Soros-supported Center for American Progress blames rich Jews for stoking Islamophobia…

The Obama-allied Center for American Progress has released a report that blames Islamophobia in America on a small group of Jews and Israel supporters in America, whose views are being backed by millions of dollars. This “network”, according to the news release, have “have worked hard to push narratives that Obama might be a Muslim, that mosques are incubators of radicalization, and that “radical Islam” has infiltrated all aspects of American society — including the conservative movement. Who are the figures mentioned as the promoters of prejudice? Most of them are prominent Jews and supporters of Israel, such as David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson (the founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism). The eight foundations mentioned as funding this effort include are almost exclusively ones founded and funded by Jewish donors, and lest readers not be aware of this fact, the Center for American Progress lists not only the other beneficiaries of the charities and foundations (most of them having Jewish or Israel in the title) but also goes to the trouble of naming the individuals behind these charities — not just the donors but also those who serve on the boards.

Now here are some excerpts from the report itself:

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability
to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations
increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to
influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections
has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.
And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations.
A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the
Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of
right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—

…Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations,  Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating
since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According
to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should
be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country
thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

Separate from the Fairbrook Foundation [one of the funders], Aubrey Chernick is a trustee of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and helped provide the $3.5 million in initial capital to start the conservative blog Pajamas Media, which used its online platform to oppose the Park51 community center in New York City….

Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million in total to
Islamophobic think tanks between 2001 and 2009—funding that supports the
misinformation scholars and experts….

All five [experts pictured above] are actively promoting the deeply mistaken portrayal of Islam—a religion of nearly 1.6 billion people worldwide, including 2.6 million Americans—as an inherently violent ideology that seeks domination over the United States and all non-Muslims.

Here is the summary at the start of the report:

The funding

• More than $40 million flowed from seven foundations over 10 years.

• The foundations funding the misinformation experts: Donors Capital Fund; Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation; Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; Newton and Rochelle Becker Foundation and Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust; Russell Berrie Foundation, Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund; Fairbrook Foundation.

The misinformation experts • Five experts generate the false facts and materials used by political leaders, grassroots groups, and the media: • Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy • David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence • Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum • Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America • Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism

• These experts travel the country and work with or testify before state legislatures calling for a ban on the nonexisting threat of Sharia law in America and proclaiming that the vast majority of mosques in our country harbor Islamist terrorists or sympathizers.

• David Yerushalmi’s “model legislation” banning Sharia law has been cut and pasted into bills in South Carolina, Texas, and Alaska. His video on how to draft an anti-Sharia bill and his online tools have been picked up nationwide.

The reach • The movement is moving nationwide in more than 23 states— made possible by a combination of new, single-minded Islamophobia groups, exemplified by Brigitte Gabriel’s ACT! For America, Pam Geller’s Stop Islamization of America, David Horowitz’s Freedom Center, and existing groups such as the American Family Association and the Eagle Forum.

• Misinformation experts are broadcast around the country and the world, with their work cited many times by (among others) confessed Norway terrorist Anders Breivik.

• U.S. politicians such as Reps. Peter King (R-NY), Allen West (R-FL), and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) repeat these anti-Muslim attacks give credence to incorrect facts. The impact

• This small network of people is driving the national and global debates that have real consequences on the public dialogue and on American Muslims.

• In September 2010, a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 49 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of Islam, a significant increase from 39 percent in October of 2002.

Why it matters • These attacks go right to the heart of two critically important national issues: the fabric and strength of our democracy and our national security. Our Constitution upholds freedom of religion for all Americans. Contending that some religions are not part of the promise of American freedoms established by our founders directly challenges who we are as a nation.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

103 Responses

  1. hophmi
    August 29, 2011, 10:20 am

    I can’t stand these guys, and I do what I can to oppose them.

    Their religion is incidental to their work. Only Pipes writes with any regularity on Israel, and if you parse his writing, you’ll see that it very much fits with his general world view, which is that no negotiation with radical Islamists is possible. There’s little argument to be made that Israel is a major motivation for their work. If you’re going to be an anti-Islam activist, you’re going to be pro the countries with an Islamic terror problem, and you’re going to criticize anything that looks like a concession to radical Islam and be pro anything that is anti-Islamic. These guys were not fans of the Arab Spring and they’re the types who will say the rebels in Libya are filled with Al-Qaeda. That’s not because they’re worried about Israel.

    In the American context, these guys are a big deal only because they have an echo chamber in the conservative Christian community and media exposure on Fox. In the Jewish community, particularly in the Establishment, these guys are not taken very seriously. On the right in the Jewish community, they’re taken seriously, but that’s no different than the right in the rest of the country.

    • Donald
      August 29, 2011, 11:07 am

      ” In the Jewish community, particularly in the Establishment, these guys are not taken very seriously. On the right in the Jewish community, they’re taken seriously, but that’s no different than the right in the rest of the country.”

      Well, how big is the Jewish right? Also, when it comes to Israel, a lot of otherwise liberal people seem to have rightwing views. So you can have people opposed to Islamophobia within the US who react with kneejerk anger at any criticism of Israel that goes beyond some very very mild level.

    • Woody Tanaka
      August 29, 2011, 3:32 pm

      “There’s little argument to be made that Israel is a major motivation for their work.”

      LOL. Spencer’s standing in front of an Israeli flag in that picture.

      You can say that Israel isn’t exclusively their consideration or that it is not the majority of their motivation, but it is a major motivation, to greater or lesser degrees, depending on the person. But to say that Israel has nothing to do with this is nonsense. Yerushalmi’s family name isn’t “Washingtoni” for pete’s sake.

      • hophmi
        August 29, 2011, 3:57 pm

        “LOL. Spencer’s standing in front of an Israeli flag in that picture.”

        And here’s a picture of him standing in front of an American flag.
        link to bit.ly

        Your point? I didn’t say Israel played no role in their worldview. I said it’s incidental. And no, it’s not a major motivation. They’re anti-Islamic terrorism. No country has faced more Islamic terrorism than Israel has. Therefore, they like Israel.

        “Yerushalmi’s family name isn’t “Washingtoni” for pete’s sake.”

        And Spencer isn’t a Jew, and no one besides Yerushalmi practices Judaism with any regularity. Besides Spencer, these guys are hawks who happen to be Jewish, and they are dwarfed in number by the conservative Christians who echo their views. Pat Robertson has a much bigger reach than any of these guys do.

        It’s funny about Spencer not being Jewish, isn’t it. Blows up Phil’s whole theory really. Maybe Phil took one look at Spencer and that big nose and he said to himself, must be a Jew. That illustrates everything wrong with Phil and this blog.

        As far as Yerushalmi, yeah, Yerushalmi’s the one religious Jew in the group. But even with him, he’s not identified at all with the pro-Israel community. In fact, most of the Jewish establishment opposes all of these guys, and in particular this anti-Sharia law nonsense both because it is bigoted and because it has potential implications for those who use Jewish law in civil proceedings.

      • tree
        August 30, 2011, 5:29 am

        Hophmi, you can’t have it both ways. You wax on about how Jews “are a people” and then insist in this instance that because some of those who self-identify as Jews aren’t particularly religious therefore their Jewishness must have nothing to do with their political outlook and Israel is not an important part of their identity. You can’t go back and forth, insisting when it suits your purposes that Jewishness is only about religion and then when it suits your argument otherwise, Jewishness is a peoplehood issue, not a religion. Its special pleading.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 30, 2011, 9:39 am

        “I didn’t say Israel played no role in their worldview. I said it’s incidental. And no, it’s not a major motivation.”

        I’ve read enough of all of them (except Spencer) to know that their interest in Israeli incidental, but is no less than co-primary *(except for Emerson. Of them, he is the least motivated by Israel, in my estimation.) Their interest in India, by contrast, is by and large incidental and exists solely to the extent that it impacts their Islamophobia.

      • Mooser
        August 30, 2011, 3:22 pm

        “Its special pleading.”

        Please! It is, after all, a vintage whine!

    • MRW
      August 29, 2011, 6:03 pm

      The Republican Jewish Coalition and the right-wing party, Yisrael Beitenu, are directly behind this. Directly. They started it. They funded it. They pushed it. They even forced the Florida State Attorney General back in 2007 to make it mandatory that state workers view the originating DVD. See my post at MRW August 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm for the details of the reports.

      This is not the Christian community and media exposure on Fox concocting something.

      I repeat: The Republican Jewish Coalition and the right-wing party, Yisrael Beitenu, are directly behind this. Directly.

    • Mooser
      August 30, 2011, 3:25 pm

      “I can’t stand these guys, and I do what I can to oppose them. “

      Yes sir, I find that just oh-so-believable. No doubt your efforts to fight Islamophobia are easily found and linked.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 3:52 pm

        They are. But that’s OK Mooser, I’m not seeking your approval.

  2. munro
    August 29, 2011, 10:27 am

    “Crazed theory of importing democracy to the Middle East” is the stated goal. The real goal is to demolish threats to Israeli supremacy.

  3. seafoid
    August 29, 2011, 10:39 am

    Israel is one of the main breeding grounds for islamophobia. How many of these people are Jewish and what are Jews doing taking on Islam ? What is the point of insulting the religious beliefs of over 1 billion? How is it supposed to end ? How is it “good for the Jews”?

  4. Bumblebye
    August 29, 2011, 10:50 am

    Keith Olberman interview with one of the reports authors:
    link to antonyloewenstein.com
    The interviewee notes that the head of a donating foundation (unnamed) was contacted and was appalled that funds were being sent in that direction for that purpose. He hopes bringing the donors to light will provide some kind of deterrence in future.

    • Chaos4700
      August 29, 2011, 8:29 pm

      Keith Olbermann is such a fantastic guy. I wish he hadn’t left Countdown.

    • Mndwss
      August 30, 2011, 9:49 am

      Some of the 331 comments on the YouTube page about this video:

      -kiill everly muslim (2 Hours ago)

      -hahahaha Muslims blew up a mosque in Iraq somebody explain to these worthless sand monkey animals that you blow up the enemy not your own side hahahahaha that be like marines blowing up a church on main st hahaha makes perfect sense…..got to be the stupidest animals on earth (One day ago).

      -islamphobia hahahaha all muslim are pig animals sand fuck….i burn Korans watch out ill burn you….. there’s no phobia people just hate those fucking worthless animals…..so why don’t you educate yourself you fucking retard fucking moron…to bads a muslim didn’t blow up your plane (2 Hours ago)

      -go live with the dirty smelly animals your about as fucking stupid as them
      haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa muslim lover 95% will be slaughtered… (2 Hours ago)

      -does everyone know that islam has been attacking this country since it’s founding? google the barbary prirates dont need millions to use the google (One day ago)

      -not to spread fear about islam BUT to spread AWARENESS of the dangers of islam!! (One day ago)

      -so if we don’t want to be force fed an idiotic dogma we’re in the wrong? This is social terrorism. Islam doesn’t belong in this century. (One day ago)

      -Then there was the judge in Oklahoma who struck down a voter-approved ban on Sharia Law, which advocates stoning, beheadings, and honor killings. Ironically, Rachel Maddow is another supporter, even though she would be killed under Sharia Law for being a lesbian.

      You’re the bitch for supporting Sharia Law. Liberals are the real bigots. They want everyone else to integrate, yet they live in all-white communities and would be the first to wet their pants in a group of 20 Somalis and Mexicans moved into THEIR neighborhoods. (One day ago)

      link to youtube.com

      How many seconds would this video be open for comments if the comments said:

      -kiill everly Jew?

      • Bumblebye
        August 30, 2011, 10:21 am

        This is the impact of such an ugly cabal of hatemongers. These malignant commenters have had their ‘right’ to hate a specific group legitimized by them. Islamophobia is being fostered, groomed and promoted as part of ‘respectable’ political discourse. And you say how many seconds would the video be open to comments if they said “kill every Jew”? And I think, but how, 90 years ago, did anti-semitism get pushed into the political arena in such a way that IT became ‘respectable’ in Germany? And then led to the horrors it did? Someone, some few, pushed it out of the private sphere where it was less dangerous, and into the public/political sphere where it could do the most immense harm. Is that happening now with Islamophobia? With the right wingnuts adopting it, the Christizios promoting it, the Israel uber alles crowd selling it cheap, where will it lead?

      • annie
        August 30, 2011, 1:40 pm

        How many seconds would this video be open for comments if the comments said:

        -kiill everly Jew?

        a nano second. this is horrible double standard.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 2:15 pm

        The same amount of time it would take for someone to report the “kill every Muslim” comments. C’mon. Whether you say “Kill every Muslim” or “Kill every Jew”, you’re violating Youtube’s standards.

      • Antidote
        August 31, 2011, 2:43 pm

        youtube standards:

        link to youtube.com

        facebook standards:

        link to facebook.com

        How long would a “Kill a Jew” site be up on facebook?

      • Cliff
        August 31, 2011, 3:07 pm

        YouTube is much more tolerant of Islamophobia.

        It also caters to Zionist hysterics which is why Max B.’s video got taken down. It’s astounding. That video was an accurate picture of the kind of intellectual complexity of young American (and some Israeli) Zionists.

        The profundity is that you don’t see that racism in video often and Zionism was clowned on. It’s a great victory in the narrative war because we’re constantly beamed this B.S. PR image of Israel in the States.

        Max is great at cutting people down to size. Jon Stewart could easily do the same kind of reporting to undermine ‘Brand Israel’ but won’t. Ever.

  5. annie
    August 29, 2011, 11:00 am

    wow, i hope this report gets the wide coverage it deserves, and i think it will. that’s a lot of money, 40 million. i can easily believe it tho, it been a sustained campaign , a barrage of hate speech that’s entered our culture that did not exist when i was growing up. or if it did i was not aware of it. an extension of the power of nightmares.

    • hophmi
      August 29, 2011, 11:31 am

      “i can easily believe it tho, it been a sustaining campaign , a barrage of hate speech that’s entered our culture that did not exist when i was growing up. or if it did i was not aware of it. an extension of the power of nightmares.”

      Ok Annie, agreed. But I think the reality of Islamic terrorism has something to do with it. These guys did not come from nowhere.

      But their Judaism has little to do with their philosophy or their reach. It’s incidental. None of these guys are especially religious, to my knowledge, with the exception of Yerushalmi.

      And in fact, according to wikipedia, Spencer practices Greek Catholicism. He’s not Jewish. Sorry, Phil. link to en.wikipedia.org

      Really, it’s pretty easy to see where these guys come from intellectually, and none of it has much to do with Israel. Pipes and Gaffney are ex-Cold Warriors. Spencer is an ex-Communist who switched extremes a la David Horowitz. Emerson is the only one who has focused on the threat of Islamic terrorism for virtually all of his career, and his first forays into the issue were exposes of the Saudi kingdom.

      Yerushalmi is the only one who is an observant Jew, and while I’m sure he’s pro-Israel, his work has hardly been focused on Israel at all.

      To say that these guys are motivated by Israel’s security or by their religion is simply not supported by the facts. These guys are dwarfed by the number of pundits from the Christian right who make arguments like theirs, and have a much more demonstrable connection to religious interests in the Christian community than these guys have to the Jewish community.

      • annie
        August 29, 2011, 3:38 pm

        But I think the reality of Islamic terrorism has something to do with it. These guys did not come from nowhere.

        maybe you should watch the movie hophmi. obviously they did not come from nowhere. in fact if you watch the movie it gives you a pretty good idea where they came from.

        But their Judaism has little to do with their philosophy or their reach. It’s incidental. None of these guys are especially religious, to my knowledge, with the exception of Yerushalmi.

        what do you mean ‘but’? i didn’t even address judaism or anything about their religion.

        Really, it’s pretty easy to see where these guys come from intellectually, and none of it has much to do with Israel. Pipes and Gaffney are ex-Cold Warriors.

        right, these are probably just coincidences :

        Frank Gaffney’s Israel Death Fantasy

        Because no discussion of anything Middle East can take place without also talking about how it affects Israel, Frank Gaffney over at Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace creates a scenario in which U.S. action in Libya becomes the precedent for how Obama and his “anti-Israel troika of female advisors” will attack Israel.

        It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a UN Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. The U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, one of the prime-movers behind the resolution that authorized the use of force against Gaddafi and a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States abstain, rather than veto the Palestinians’ gambit. She is joined in that recommendation by a kindred spirit at the Obama National Security Council, Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs Samantha Power, and by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as First Lady.

        Suddenly, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens are on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its longstanding position: Its state must be (to use Hitler’s term for ethnic cleansing) judenrein – requiring the removal of all Jews from the sovereign territory of Palestine. And, thanks to the international affirmation of the so-called 1967 borders, the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas and Company need no longer accede to one of the anticipated solutions of the “peace process,” i.e., the relinquishing by Israel of territory in the Negev, so as to accommodate the permanent presence of Jewish communities (a.k.a. “settlements”) on land claimed by the Palestinians.

        (and here’s from pipes wiki page)

        Through Campus Watch, Pipes encouraged students and faculty to submit information on “Middle East-related scholarship, lectures, classes, demonstrations, and other activities relevant to Campus Watch”.[14] The project was accused of “McCarthyesque intimidation” of professors who criticized Israel when it published “dossiers” on eight professors it thought “hostile” to America. In protest, more than 100 academics demanded to be added to what some called a “blacklist”. In October 2002 Campus Watch removed the dossiers from their website.[15][16][17][18]

        so, their obsessions with islam and their obsessions with israel are not connected in anyway.

        gotcha.

      • hophmi
        August 29, 2011, 4:14 pm

        “what do you mean ‘but’? i didn’t even address judaism or anything about their religion.”

        Phil did. That’s why he made the post.

        “so, their obsessions with islam and their obsessions with israel are not connected in anyway.”

        Jeez, Annie, did I say that? No.

        I said Israel is INCIDENTAL to their cause, not totally unrelated to it. The argument Phil made is that Israel is a MOTIVATING cause of their activism; their anti-Islam activism is a CONSEQUENCE of their pro-Israel activism.

        I argue that Israel is NOT a motivating cause, but merely INCIDENTAL. Their pro-Israel views are a CONSEQUENCE of their anti-Islamic activism. They are not anti-Islam because they are pro-Israel. They are pro-Israel because they are anti-Islam, and because they see Israel as fighting against an Islamic cause.

        I believe their view is misguided, but misguided in a way that is no different than any other conservative is misguided.

        That is the difference between Phil and I. According to Phil, Israel and Judaism motivate these political actors, and they are peculiarly misguided because they are pro-Israel Jews. According to me, a hatred/fear/suspicion of Islam motivates these actors, which in turn causes them to be pro-Israel out of the misguided notion that Israel is fighting a religious war. Phil singles them out for being Jewish (though Spencer is not Jewish, no one seems to practice besides Yerushalmi, and Jewish establishment organizations by and large reject them). I believe they’re nothing special, and there are many more, and much more visible and influential conservative Christian political actors who say the same things.

        Do you understand now?

      • Cliff
        August 29, 2011, 4:22 pm

        I don’t know too much about Pipes and Spencer but I think both of them are more concerned about the ‘clash of civilizations’ meme and all the rest, rather than primarily Israel or ‘because of’ Israel.

        I think it’s flat-out wrong though to knock the connection between Islamophobia and Zionism. Islamophobia serves Israel’s interests for sure.

      • annie
        August 29, 2011, 4:46 pm

        sorry hophmi, perhaps i misinterpreted your meaning. seeing as how your comment was directed at me i thought the ideas were connected to something i said or perhaps the link which allows you to download the movie for free and says:

        This film explores the origins in the 1940s and 50s of Islamic Fundamentalism in the Middle East, and Neoconservatism in America, parallels between these movements, and their effect on the world today.

        i never tried to claim islamic fundementalism didn’t exist or as you put it ” has something to do with it.

        this post is not really about islamic fundementalism, it is about islamophobia. but if you’d like to argue or discuss islamic fundementalism with me, i’d appreciate you address it thru my reference, which is the movie. you can google it and read the description @ wiki.

        They are pro-Israel because they are anti-Islam

        whatever, frankly i find that a little bit of a stretch.

        and because they see Israel as fighting against an Islamic cause.

        uhuh. well, i think i see it all a little more intertwined than you do. have a pleasant day.

      • annie
        August 29, 2011, 4:51 pm

        I think both of them are more concerned about the ‘clash of civilizations’

        cliff, one might think if they were against a clash of civilizations they wouldn’t be supportive of an apartheid state w/european immigration/colonialism into the ME. silly me but that would just seem like common sense, if one were worried about a clash of civilization.

        as for american muslims they are not doing a lot of clashing here so why should we even be alarmed? they are obsessive islamophobes peddling hate speech and should be fully exposed and denounced.

      • Cliff
        August 29, 2011, 5:23 pm

        I consider the clash thing to be within the nexus of islamophobia

      • Miura
        August 29, 2011, 6:56 pm

        The High Priest of ‘Clash of Civilizations’–the famed Orientalist who coined the phrase in fact which was picked up by others flailing around for a post-Cold War “Grand Idea”–crowd considers Israel to be the very rampart of Western Civilization. He has issued warnings from Jerusalem on topics such as how Muslims are about to “take over Europe” and the consequent “Fall of Europe to Islam”.

    • Mndwss
      August 29, 2011, 12:58 pm

      Annie the hate speech did exist and the nightmare was the Soviet Union and communism.

      It just got much uglier when the west had to find a new enemy after the fall of the Soviet Union, and chose to set races and religions up against each other.

      The battle between secular ideologies like capitalism an communism seems innocent when it is replaced with a battle between Races and religions.

      The cold war was scary, but then you only had to convince the enemy to obey orders an become capitalists.

      It is much more difficult to convince someone to change their religion.

      And it is impossible to convince an Arab to become Aryan, or a lion to become a tiger.

      • annie
        August 29, 2011, 3:27 pm

        hi, mndwss, i’m sure hate speech did exist, especially during the mcCarthy era. perhaps i chose my words wrong. when i said ‘extension’ of the power of nightmares (also called The Rise of the Politics of Fear) i didn’t mean to imply it all started then. the movie does go back to the cold war era.

  6. Real Jew
    August 29, 2011, 11:07 am

    Rich Jews in America are demonizing Islam? What?! Whoever heard of such a thing! It’s shocking to me that its being referred to as a new phenomenon. The Lobby, MSM, and Hollywood has been doing this for years.

    Just take a look at Hollywood and how it portrays Arabs and Muslims. Literally every single movie I’ve seen (and I’m a movie buff) portrays Arabs as uneducated cab drivers (Crash) and every Muslim as a terrorist (Dont Mess with the Zohan). Now let’s consider how Jews are portrayed, either as victims or the heroes. Its not a coincidence!

    • marc b.
      August 29, 2011, 11:33 am

      there is a piece in this week’s TLS charting the treatment of ‘the muslim’ and ‘the oriental’ in popular western fiction. a long history of hysteria, jews getting their share of slanderous treatment as well.

    • munro
      August 29, 2011, 11:41 am

      Hollywood and Arabs link to reelbadarabs.com

    • Real Jew
      August 29, 2011, 11:27 pm

      Munro, thanks for the link. That’s exactly the type of crap I’m talking about. It’s out of control. I was hoping somebody would do a piece or documentary about it.

  7. Miura
    August 29, 2011, 11:49 am

    …jews getting their share of slanderous treatment as well.

    An interesting take on the politics of some Middle East experts:

    In an earlier era, before the Zionists developed a proprietary interest in Palestine, the least bigoted voices in the field of Oriental studies were often those of European Jews. Ironically, Lewis himself has written that these pro-Islamic Jews “were among the first who attempted to present Islam to European readers as Muslims themselves see it and to stress, to recognize, and indeed sometimes to romanticize the merits and achievements of Muslim civilization in its great days.” At a time when most Orientalists took Muhammad for a scheming imposter, equated Islam with fanaticism, thought that the Qur’an was a crude and incoherent text, and believed that the Arabs were incapable of abstract thought, a growing number of Jewish scholars often took opposite positions. They accepted the sincerity of Muhammad’s mission, described Arabs as “Jews on horseback” and Islam as an evolving faith that was more democratic than other religions, and debunked Orientalist claims about a static Islam and a dynamic West. It would appear that these Jews were anti-Orientalists long before Edward Said.

    These contrarian positions had a variety of motives behind them. Even as the Jews began to enter the European mainstream, starting in the nineteenth century, they were still outsiders, having only recently emerged from the confinement of ghettos, and it would be scarcely surprising if they were seeking to maintain their distinctiveness by emphasizing and identifying with the achievements of another Semitic people, the Arabs. In celebrating Arab civilization, these Jewish scholars were perhaps sending a none-too-subtle message to the Europeans that their civilization was not unique, that Arab achievements often excelled theirs, and that Europeans were building upon Islamic achievements in science and philosophy. In addition, Jewish scholars’ discussions of religious and racial tolerance in Islamic societies, toward Jews in particular, may have offered hope that such tolerance was attainable in Europe too. The discussions may also have been an invitation to Europeans to incorporate religious and racial tolerance in their standards of civilization.

    Yet the vigor of this early anti-Orientalism of Jewish scholars would not last; it would not survive the logic of the Zionist movement as it sought to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Such a state could only emerge as a child of Western imperialist powers, and it could only come into existence by displacing the greater part of the Palestinian population, by incorporating them into an apartheid state, or through some combination of the two. In addition, once created, Israel could only survive as a military, expansionist, and hegemonic state, constantly at war with its neighbors. In other words, as the Zionist project gathered momentum it was inevitable that the European Jews’ attraction for Islam was not going to endure. In fact, it would be replaced by a bitter contest, one in which the Jews, as junior partners of the imperialist powers, would seek to deepen the Orientalist project in the service of Western power. Bernard Lewis played a leading part in this Jewish reorientation. In the words of Martin Kramer, Bernard Lewis “came to personify the post-war shift from a sympathetic to a critical posture.”

  8. Kathleen
    August 29, 2011, 12:39 pm

    Glad you picked up this report Phil. Hoping Chris Matthews picks up on this report. He used to have Frank Gaffney on all of the time. He used to poke holes in him. Hope he cover this. Posted over at his blog

    More out there
    Bumblebye August 28, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    Possible ammunition against that – the Center for American Progress has a report into the funding of prominent Islamophobes, and Keith Olberman interviewed one of its authors:
    link to antonyloewenstein.com
    there’s the news vid;
    link to americanprogress.org
    that’s an article by Wajahat Ali introducing the report which is linked on the same page.
    All the links and tangles in that small but well funded corner of bigotry.

    Reply

    Kathleen August 28, 2011 at 7:28 pm

    Meant to link this earlier
    link to english.aljazeera.net
    I have to admit, however, that until I read a report published today by the Center for American Progress (CAP), I had no idea just how orchestrated and well-financed this movement was.

    The report, “Fear Inc: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America,” demonstrates that a small group of self-proclaimed experts (Frank Gaffney, David Yerushalmi, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, and Steve Emerson) backed by a host of foundations and donors (many of which also fund the lobby) have put Islamophobia on the map.

    To put it simply, without these “experts,” their donors, and Fox News (their media mouthpiece) you would never have heard that a Muslim community center (the “Ground Zero Mosque”) was being constructed in New York City. And the center certainly would not have become a major news story. Nor would Republican (and even a few Democratic) candidates for president, Congress, and even village councils be called upon to condemn Islam and “Sharia Law” or face being labeled a supporter of terrorism. Nor would Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain and Rick Santorum have made hatred of American Muslims such an integral part of their campaigns.

    It all starts with the money. According to CAP:

    A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam-in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.

    Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

    * Donors Capital Fund
    * Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
    * Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
    * Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
    * Russell Berrie Foundation
    * Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
    * Fairbrook Foundation

  9. Charon
    August 29, 2011, 12:46 pm

    Right vs. Left, Conservative vs. Progressive. Two sides of the same coin

    Center for American Progress has received heavy support and donations from Count of St. Germain himself, George Soros. Soros is on the Council of Foreign Relations btw. They are also global warming / climate change fear mongers.

    I know some of you believe that but I believe astronomers over notorious lying non-scientist politicians any day of the week. The funny weather on Venus and Jupiter correlates with Earth and that’s not our doing. If you have a few hours, Google recent developments on Venus and the greenhouse effect. We could definitely all benefit from being greener, no doubts about that. A carbon tax won’t solve anything except make the rich people richer and I question why politicians would be in league with any kind of science. Stick to your day job, learn more about that. Bachmann thinks the USSR is still around.

    Anyways, CFP ‘progressives’ are Neocons in new clothes. Neoprogs

    The Foreign Policy Initiative gave Obama high marks and they also get along quite well with CFP. FPI literally is PNAC formed by the same people after the latter went defunct a few years back.

    Why expose the Islam thing? Because the Islam thing is becoming a straw man. Watch the new DHS domestic terrorist ‘trailers’ that portray white people as potential terrorists. The timing of this with the Breivik thing isn’t a coincidence. There are no coincidences.

    • annie
      August 29, 2011, 12:52 pm

      CFP ‘progressives’ are Neocons in new clothes.

      what. ever.

  10. Walid
    August 29, 2011, 2:16 pm

    One of the recipients of part of these $40 million was the Clarion Fund that the good guys here would remember as the party that distributed 28 million free DVDs of “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West” via mail and newspapers to mostly swingstates just before the last US general elections. I won’t rehash the Obsession piece of garbage here as mostly everyone knows about it but I want to stress that part of the $40 million went towards producing and distributing the DVD.

    • annie
      August 29, 2011, 2:22 pm

      yeah, i picked that up. it’s a coordinated attack of the mentality of americans. i keep linking to noura erakat’s great article “Constructing the Prototypical Terrorist in America: Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian” so i won’t bore everyone with it again but this is brain washing and if you claim it is what it is you get accused of CT. but a conspiracy is exactly what it is. a very well funded conspiracy coordinated with the complicity of the media and law enforcement. i’m not saying everyone participating in it is in on the conspiracy but they are actors whether they realize it or not. but at the top? damn straight it’s a conspiracy.

    • MRW
      August 29, 2011, 5:32 pm

      The two important precursors to this report

      The rabbi who runs jewsonfirst.org jumped on the Obsession issue in February 2007 on his site—DVD came out as soon as Obama announced his candidacy—because I was helping him (he put out an APB) to find out who was behind the Clarion Fund.

      Jewsonfirst.org put out two reports:

      (1) first report, a good one, dated Feb 15, 2007, ties these efforts in with Israel and CUFI:
      Republican Jewish Coalition responsible for mailing anti-Muslim film Ari Fleischer is a Board member of this org.

      This report implicates former US Ambassador to Israel and Yisrael Beitenu party member Danny Ayalon, who wrote a letter to accompany the DVD (which goes to comments above that Israel is incidental to this Islamophobia, when it is clear it was behind it). It’s short and informative.
      link to jewsonfirst.org
      I’ve published this link countless times on this blog and the same crew pooh-pooh it,

      (2) the big megilla, the extensive one: Rebutting Obsession
      link to jewsonfirst.org
      =====================================

      In October 2010, the Religion Editor at The Tennessean, Bob Smietana, wrote a two-part investigative report:
      Anti-Muslim crusaders make millions spreading fear
      That starts out

      Steven Emerson has 3,390,000 reasons to fear Muslims.

      That’s how many dollars Emerson’s for-profit company — Washington-based SAE Productions — collected in 2008 for researching alleged ties between American Muslims and overseas terrorism.

      link to tennessean.com

      This report details how the crew pictured above on this blog are spreading the Sharia Law fear through Christian Right communities.

      See page five in the online story (link I just gave you) for a Naval College ME instructor and Islam expert dispel the Sharia Law nonsense.

      • tree
        August 30, 2011, 6:18 am

        The Israeli angle is all over the production and distribution of “Obsession”, which came out in 2005.

        Pardon the Wiki reference, but:

        One of the writers/producers of the film, Raphael Shore, is a Canadian-Israeli film writer, producer, Rabbi and founder of The Clarion Fund.

        … The film uses many images from Arab TV, provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute and Palestinian Media Watch. [my note;two organization led by by the notorious Itamar Marcus, Israeli West Bank settler]

        …Wayne Kopping co-wrote, directed, and edited the filmRaphael Shore co-wrote and produced the film.[8] Shore, a Canadian-Israeli film writer, producer, is also founder of The Clarion Fund.[9] Kopping and Shore previously collaborated on Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East. Brett Halperin, named as the production manager, is an alias according to Shore.[10][11]

        ….Executive producer Peter Mier, an alias for an unnamed Canadian Jewish businessman, provided about 80 percent of the film’s $400,000 budget, according to Raphael Shore.[10][11] According to IRS documents obtained by the Center for Investigative Reporting, financial support for the film came from an organization named Castello Limited.[12]

        …The film was initially promoted via the internet by HonestReporting and later through campus and Washington, DC screenings and later mass DVD distribution by the Clarion Fund. HonestReporting, a media watch organization run by Ephraim Shore, the twin brother of Obsession producer Raphael Shore, was involved in the initial internet-based promotion of the film.[13] During production in 2005, the media watch group HonestReporting promoted the film as one of its projects.[13] Later when the film was released, HonestReporting promoted the film on its website describing it as an “affiliate” project.[13] The media watch group, in an interview with The Jewish Week, says it was not involved in the film’s production.[13]
        [my note: Honest Reporting is an NGO that monitors the media for perceived bias against Israel.]

        …The Clarion Fund has a non-exclusive agreement to distribute Obsession, Relentless and The Third Jihad.[13]

        In September 2008, the Clarion Fund, in cooperation with the Endowment for Middle East Truth,[20] distributed 28 million DVDs of the film by mail,[21] and in newspaper advertising supplements, predominantly in swing states.[22]

        The film was included in the first issue of the publication “The Judeo-Christian View”, which was sent to priests and pastors in churches and synagogues in the United States.[7][23][24]

        The DVD was also distributed to all 30,000 members of the Republican Jewish Coalition.[25]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        On the Clarion Fund and the Endowment for Middle East Truth:

        According to Clarion Fund’s incorporation papers, it is based at the same address as Aish Hatorah, a pro-Israel organization.[7] The three founders of The Clarion Fund are or were full-time employees of Aish HaTorah.[8] Raphael Shore, the leader of The Clarion Fund is also a full-time employee of Aish HaTorah.[8] Clarion Fund initially denied its ties to Aish Hatorah, which were first discovered by an IPS investigation in 2007.[9][10]

        The International Relations Center reports that the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) was Clarion’s distribution partner for the Obsession DVD. EMET’s advisors include former Israeli ambassador Yoram Ettinger, a former chair at the Ariel Center for Policy Research.[11]

        EMET of course is a pro-Israeli think tank.

        What we have here is a very obvious attempt on the part of pro-Israeli organizations to influence American opinion negatively towards Islam. The timing coincides with the rise of Hamas in the Occupied Territories, and is clearly another attempt by these same pro-Israeli groups to further poison the conversation about Palestinians, done for their own Israeli-centric reasons. Simply poisoning minds in the US about Arabs wasn’t working sufficiently, so there was a need to stir up religious intolerance, aimed specifically at Fundamentalist Christians.

  11. hophmi
    August 29, 2011, 2:27 pm

    “it’s a coordinated attack of the mentality of americans”

    “but a conspiracy is exactly what it is. a very well funded conspiracy coordinated with the complicity of the media.”

    Do you realize that every time you do this, it makes you look intellectually weak? You would do a lot better if you simply addressed their arguments head-on rather than blaming it on “conspiracy” or calling it a “coordinated attack” on the “mentality of Americans.”

    People are not mindless drones. If they ate this stuff up, there was a reason. You need to do more than cry conspiracy if you’re going to make progress.

    • annie
      August 29, 2011, 2:45 pm

      i don’t care if you think i am intellectually weak. for heaven’s sake hophmi, it’s 40 million dollars and that newspaper campaign (as i recall was timed right at an important holiday) went out to thousand of homes and have you watched that movie fitna? get friggin real. nice cherry picking btw. would you have liked it better had i said every single person who played a part, right down to the newspaper deliveryboy, was in on it? hey, maybe it was just an oversite of the media that while all the blogs were talking about this cd insert not a one of them reported anything about it. wow, wonder why/NOT.

      again, i could care less if you think i sound weak. i am not a gullible idiot. one would have to have blinders on to imagine this was not a malicious mindfuck of the masses targeted against muslims, islam and arabs in america.

      • hophmi
        August 29, 2011, 2:52 pm

        ” i am not a gullible idiot.”

        No, you’re not. But you apparently think most people are, and thus you let yourself off the hook.

      • annie
        August 29, 2011, 3:11 pm

        first of all i do not think most people are, and second how does this ‘let me off the hook’?

        i don’t think most people are aware it is going on, therefore it’s not a matter of them being gullible idiots.

        also, i am not on any hook although it’s clear you’ve got one ready for me!

        ;)

      • Chaos4700
        August 29, 2011, 8:26 pm

        Find those nukes in Iraq yet, Mr. Little Green Footballs?

    • Woody Tanaka
      August 29, 2011, 3:18 pm

      “People are not mindless drones.”

      The advertising industry would probably disagree…

    • MRW
      August 29, 2011, 5:46 pm

      Annie, hophmi is completely out to lunch on this issue and out of date; he’s historically ignorant; he’s doing a Witty with the facts because the CAP has pulled the pants down on this massive network–it ain’t small.

      BTW, it wasn’t thousands of houses this went to, it was millions. I wrote about it here on this blog four years ago. I railed (unfortunately two years before there was an archive). The Republican Jewish Coalition were behind it with the right-wing party in Israel and they were threatened pols in Florida who didn’t play the DVD for their constituencies. Find my MRW August 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm post for the reports. Read the smaller jewsonfirst.org one for a quick overview. This is exactly the same stuff that Max Blumenthal has been covering, and from the same time period.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 11:43 am

        So MRW cites a Jewish website criticizing the Republican Jewish Coalition’s dissemination of “Obsession” as apparent proof that there is a Jewish/Israeli element to those with an anti-Islam agenda. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not a “Jewish issue.” It is the same political issue found in the rest of the United States, and there is nothing specifically Jewish about it. The Republican Jewish Coalition’s stance on the issue is no different than the stance of the rest of the Republican party and its large Christian conservative constituency. It’s not a surprise that the RJC mailed it out – under CUFI’s Christian conservative banner. CUFI is way bigger than the RJC.

        Again, as I said before, Israel is INCIDENTAL here. It is not a major motivating factor. This stuff has an audience in the United States for two major reasons. One is the large conservative Christian community. The second is 9/11.

      • tree
        August 30, 2011, 4:03 pm

        Again, as I said before, Israel is INCIDENTAL here.

        Read my post up above about the production and distribution of “Obsession”. It has Israel and Israeli Jews all over it. See my comment at august 30, 6:18am.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        So MRW cites a Jewish website criticizing the Republican Jewish Coalition’s dissemination of “Obsession” as apparent proof that there is a Jewish/Israeli element to those with an anti-Islam agenda. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not a “Jewish issue.”

        hophmi. I’m sure you would agree then that the fact that white people criticized South African apartheid it proved “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that it was not a “white issue”. And since the anti-Islamic movement is likewise ciriticized by Christian organizations, it can’t possibly be a “Christian issue”, right? Oh wait…. you just said it was. Different standards again-what a surprise.

        Stupid lawyer argument again, hophmi. Try harder.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 5:06 pm

        “Read my post up above about the production and distribution of “Obsession”. It has Israel and Israeli Jews all over it. ”

        I read it. You seem to think that if some Jews support a cause, it is a “Jewish cause” or a cause “motivated by Israel”. Apparently, Jewish American conservative are not permitted to be conservative without being accused of being “motivated by Israel.” Christians, however, get a pass on that one. Most Jews in America, including those in the political class and the Establishment, have nothing to do with Obsession.

        “I’m sure you would agree then that the fact that white people criticized South African apartheid it proved “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that it was not a “white issue”. ”

        Huh? I argue that because the vast majority of those who are involved in promoting Islamophobia in this country are non-Jewish conservatives, it is not an issue “motivated by Israel” or motivated by the “Judaism” of those promoting the issue. They are overwhelmingly Christian conservatives.

        “And since the anti-Islamic movement is likewise ciriticized by Christian organizations, it can’t possibly be a “Christian issue”, right? Oh wait…. you just said it was. Different standards again-what a surprise.”

        What the hell are you talking about? It’s very simple. The Christian conservative community, as represented by people like Pat Robertson and John Hagee and others, are Islamophobic. They are the ones who invite people like Pipes and Spencer and Gaffney to speak at their conferences. They are the ones who fund the efforts to put anti-Sharia statutes on the books. Not Jews. Are they “motivated by Israel?” Are they “motivated by Judaism?” No. They’re motivated by fundamentalist Christianity and a misguided love of country.

        No one has been able to prove, not even a little bit, that Israel is anything other than one issue for the Islamophobic crowd of mostly Christians, an issue they see as fitting into their clash-of-civilizations world view.

      • annie
        August 30, 2011, 5:19 pm

        Apparently, Jewish American conservative are not permitted to be conservative without being accused of being “motivated by Israel.”

        maybe not, especially when they just happen to have an obsession with both protecting israel and are islamophobes. haven’t we already discussed this?

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 5:33 pm

        Again, it is not any more an obsession for them than it is for Christian conservatives. What motivates them is conservative political ideology, not Judaism.

        To prove that they were motivated by Israel or Judaism, you’d have to show that they actually care about their Judaism in some significant way and that they were more concerned with Israel than their (vastly more numerous) non-Jewish political allies. Of these guys, only Yerushalmi is observant, Spencer is not even Jewish, and whatever feelings they have on Israel, they are echoed, if not greatly exceeded, by those of their allies on the Christian right. Therefore, Israel is neither their motivating factor and their Judaism does not play a great role in their political activism.

      • tree
        August 31, 2011, 1:46 am

        What the hell are you talking about? It’s very simple. The Christian conservative community, as represented by people like Pat Robertson and John Hagee and others, are Islamophobic. They are the ones who invite people like Pipes and Spencer and Gaffney to speak at their conferences. They are the ones who fund the efforts to put anti-Sharia statutes on the books. Not Jews. Are they “motivated by Israel?” Are they “motivated by Judaism?” No. They’re motivated by fundamentalist Christianity and a misguided love of country.

        Again, you have a double standard. Its OK to correctly claim that some Christians are motivated by their Christianity to be Islamophobic, but you insist that it isn’t OK to say the same thing about some Jews, when its clearly no different. And in reverse, you claim that becaus not all Jews are Islamophobic this means that support for Israel, or their personal view of Judaism, or secular Jewishness, can’t be a motivating factor for any one Jew or group of Jews. And yet you use different standards (and more realistic and defendable ones) to argue that just because all Christians aren’t Islamophobic, this clearly doesn’t mean that for some Christians their personal view of Christianity can’t be a motivating factor in their Islamophobia.

        Are Shore, or MEMRI, or HonestReporting or EMET or the Clarion Fund motivated by their support for Israel? Of course they are. They are all engaged in promoting a “pro-Israel” agenda in the US, outside of, and prior to, their anti-Islamic gigs. They are the ones behind “Obsession” and its distribution.

        Is Pipes motivated by fundamentalist Christianity? Is Gaffney? Is Yerushalmi? Of course not. You acknowledge the Christians who are anti-Islam but you refuse to recognize the Jews who are likewise, and are significant contributors to the very thing you claim you are fighting.

      • hophmi
        August 31, 2011, 9:16 am

        “Its OK to correctly claim that some Christians are motivated by their Christianity to be Islamophobic, but you insist that it isn’t OK to say the same thing about some Jews”

        There are certainly some misguided Jews who are motivated by a love of Israel and Judaism to hate Muslims. It doesn’t happen to be anyone in this particular group, however, and those that are motivated that way are not in the mainstream of the community. And even more importantly, they are tiny in number and influence compared to their allies on the Christian right, who wear their religion on their sleeve (of this group, only Yerushalmi does).

        Phil is trying to make the argument here that these 4 Jews and 1 Greek Catholic are the tail wagging the dog here and that they’re doing it because they’re Jews and because they’re motivated by Israel.

        In fact, there’s little evidence that they are MOTIVATED by Israel and plenty of evidence that being pro-Israel fits into their worldview. If Israel were fighting fundamentalist Christians instead of fundamentalist Muslims, Israel would be a non-issue. If Israel were a Catholic state fighting fundamentalist Muslims, they would all be interested in it. So it’s not about Judaism. It’s about the ideology of the guys who did 9/11. These guys are this generation’s version of the Cold Warriors who were always calling for nuking the Soviet Union. Those guys didn’t call for nuking the Soviets because they were motivated by West Germany.

        “Are Shore, or MEMRI, or HonestReporting or EMET or the Clarion Fund motivated by their support for Israel?”

        I suppose they are. So? Chas Freeman was a lobbyist for the Saudis. Can I say that he’s motivated by a love for Saudi Arabia and Islam when he criticizes Israel?

        “Is Pipes motivated by fundamentalist Christianity? Is Gaffney? Is Yerushalmi? Of course not.”

        No, why would they be? They’re motivated by a fear of fundamentalist Islam. That’s what they’re motivated by. That’s what their work is about.

        “You acknowledge the Christians who are anti-Islam but you refuse to recognize the Jews who are likewise, and are significant contributors to the very thing you claim you are fighting.”

        That’s because the Christians who are anti-Islam are leaders in the Evangelical community. These mix their Christian activism with their anti-Islam activism. They invite anti-Islam speakers to speak at religiously Christian events. Not one of these guys, Yerushalmi included, is in a leadership position in the Jewish community.

      • Chaos4700
        August 31, 2011, 9:25 am

        Not one of these guys, Yerushalmi included, is in a leadership position in the Jewish community.

        So people like Yerushalmi aren’t invited by Jewish community leaders to speak at synagogues or other Jewish-oriented events? Boy did YOU ever open a can of worms, hophmi. How often are Jewish groups bringing Israeli soldiers to synagogues and college campuses to speak? Are you going to deny that Jewish groups collaborate with college Conservative groups to bring Islamophobic speakers to college campuses? Do you deny that Evangelical Christian leaders and Jewish leaders often work together and attend similar functions?

      • hophmi
        August 31, 2011, 9:55 am

        “So people like Yerushalmi aren’t invited by Jewish community leaders to speak at synagogues or other Jewish-oriented events?”

        Sure they are. But But you’ve changed the subject. Phil’s headline is: “a small network is fostering widespread hatred of Islam inside US politics and public opinion” Phil says this group of 4 Jews and 1 Greek Catholic is motivated by their Judaism and Israel. I say they’re simply motivated by their fear of Islam. Spencer’s not even Jewish. Is he motivated by Judaism?

        “How often are Jewish groups bringing Israeli soldiers to synagogues and college campuses to speak?”

        All the time. What’s your point? I’ve heard many Israeli soldiers speak. None spread hate of Muslims. They talk about the conflict and what it’s like to be a soldier. And no one is arguing that Jewish groups who invite Israeli soldiers are not motivated by a love of Israel.

        ” Are you going to deny that Jewish groups collaborate with college Conservative groups to bring Islamophobic speakers to college campuses? ”

        Again, no one is denying there are politically conservative Jewish groups. But why is it that they are apparently motivated by their Judaism and love of Israel while non-Jewish conservative groups who invite the same people are not?

        “Do you deny that Evangelical Christian leaders and Jewish leaders often work together and attend similar functions?”

        Again, no one has. The question is whether this group of activists is MOTIVATED by Israel and Judaism to do what they do. That case has not been made, not remotely. Neither has anyone refuted my point that when it comes to using religion spreading Islamophobia, it is the Christian Evangelical community as represented by CHRISTIAN LEADERS, like Robertson and Hagee and Parsons, who are the forefront of the efforts, not Jewish leaders. 20 or 25% of the country follows guys with views like Robertson and Hagee, and you want to go on about a few guys with Jewish names and a few orthodox rabbis who subscribe to their view and their followers, who make up a tiny fraction of %1 of the United States. That strikes me as peculiar, to say the least.

      • Chaos4700
        August 31, 2011, 8:37 pm

        Okay, so now you’re suggesting Christian Evangelical leaders NEVER profess allegiance to Israel?

    • POA
      August 29, 2011, 10:23 pm

      “People are not mindless drones. If they ate this stuff up, there was a reason”

      Yep, the media.

      Who are about being a “Fourth Estate” at about the same level Israel is about being a “Nation of peace”.

  12. LanceThruster
    August 29, 2011, 4:19 pm

    I think what angers me as much as anything, is that if a proponent for justice for Palestinians says something the least bit harsh regarding Zionists or Zionism, they are immediately and forever equated with neo-Nazis and Stormfront (look at how this site or Norman Finkelstein’s is maligned).

    Anyone having any sort of interaction with said sites is then tarred with the same brush and a case is made that any position held by any of them can be dismissed outright based on claims of racism and hate rhetoric.

    Yet these dismissals are a one way street. Look at the hatred promoted by mainstream pro-Zionist sites (let alone the fringe) and all is acceptable. A site called “The Mad Jewess” goes on and on about the good old days (when minorities “knew their place”) and out of the other side of her mouth goes off on the hate rhetoric of the left. Her husband even penned a piece about “Never Trust a Black Man” – link to themadjewess.com (I think the original used a particularly offensive racial slur) based solely on a broken promise to pay by a person of color. This same sort of insanity and bigotry is on display at a site called “Bare Naked Islam” which gives the most sensational and xenophobic headlines for every single entry.

    My point being that these “fringe sites” actually represent the mainstream of most pro-Zionist thinking. Anyone looking for other ways of conflict resolution is thought of as a coward, traitor, and quisling. Merely offering another view only serves to further inflame their fanaticism.

    They frighten me as they are an unholy combination of arrogance and ignorance.

    • hophmi
      August 29, 2011, 5:22 pm

      “My point being that these “fringe sites” actually represent the mainstream of most pro-Zionist thinking. ”

      They do not. That’s simply not true.

      • Chaos4700
        August 29, 2011, 8:26 pm

        Is that why Derfner was fired for pointing out what a lot of us already knew about where the cycle of violence springs from?

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 12:48 pm

        hopmhi –

        I would posit that the following sites differ largely in matter of degree, but not in any meaningful way. The “fringe sites” might chastize the others for not taking an extreme enough position, but that in itself allows the “mainstream” sites the credibility of “moderation.”

        Like I said, fringe sites can expouse to most hateful rhetoric, but they all present a unified front on the unquestioning support of Zionism.

        The Jewish Daily Forward – link to forward.com

        Jewish World Review – link to jewishworldreview.com

        Think Israel – link to think-israel.org

        Israpundit – link to israpundit.com

        Samson Blinded – link to samsonblinded.org

        Israellycool – link to israellycool.com

        A.I.S.H. – Americans & Israeli – Strength & Honor – link to a-i-s-h.squarespace.com

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 1:17 pm

        It is beyond ridiculous to lump the Forward into this group of otherwise obviously right-wing sites (actually blogs). On this list, only the Forward is mainstream, and only the Forward includes the spectrum of mainstream views on Israel. It is simply incorrect to argue that a bunch of right-wing political blogs represent most of the mainstream Zionist thinking.

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 1:28 pm

        FYI,

        Look at the rogue’s gallery of links here –

        link to middle-east-info.org

        Like I stated, the “credible” ones are intermingled with the more reactionary ones.

      • annie
        August 30, 2011, 1:32 pm

        i agree with hophmi about the forward being mainstream, it has some really good articles. for example they just reviewed the i/p bus/cable car ads in non derogatory way. right now on the front page leads to Israel’s Image Won’t Improve Without Policy Changes, which is like…a total no brainer that israel can’t seem to grasp.

        Something is proving wrong with several of the ingredients in Israel as a product. The policies – whether we argue they are right or wrong internally – are spoiling the taste for the world consumer as well as for many in a new generation of young Jews, even those who have been on Birthright. This is not a left- or a right-wing opinion. It is a fact. No matter how Israel markets or defends itself in the media, the policies seep into the equation and kill the success of the image.

        Do I have the answer for how to fix the policies, or even which policies need fixing? No. But I’m not a politician. I’m an adman and a marketer. And I can tell you, from my years creating ads for products from Coca Cola to Apple Computer, if people keep reading about some bad ingredients in the ketchup, very few people will buy the bottle, no matter how much money and creativity you pack into the marketing. No amount of branding, slogans, viral ideas or clever engagement is going to lead towards the success that supporters of Israel need.

        What I can say is that Israel, and those who love her, need to take a hard, honest look in the mirror and uncover the deeper problems, the ones that cannot be fixed with a better logo. The loss of “Israeli” hummus might not seem detrimental right now. But that scene on Venice Beach might be a sign of things to come, when it’s more than just the producers of hummus who refuse to identify with Israel.

        in fact, this is such a good article i’m going to make a draft of it for the front page. i will say those most of the commenters at the forward reflect as very rightwing view imho.

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 1:34 pm

        hopmhi,

        I’ll examine your contention and reevaluate my position if needed. Can you offer a mainstream site that actually advocates a rejection of Zionism (or at least discusses it as a viable alternative to the status quo)?

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 1:39 pm

        “Look at the rogue’s gallery of links here –

        link to middle-east-info.org

        Like I stated, the “credible” ones are intermingled with the more reactionary ones.”

        SO WHAT? Someone puts together a list a links on some site, and it means all of the organizations behind the links are the same? If I make a list, and I call the list “Friends of the Palestinians” and I list links to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Mondoweiss, and the United Nations, does that mean Al-Qaeda is part of the mainstream support for the Palestinians?

      • Cliff
        August 30, 2011, 1:45 pm

        of course the comments are right wing crazies

        all the same mind-numbing memes of the Zionist narrative compact into one-paragraph b.s.-fests

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 2:03 pm

        I thank you for the correction, all. When I listed “The Forward” I was actually meaning to list “Frontpage” – link to frontpagemag.com

        The site David Horowitz’s now defunct “Real News” redirects to.

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 2:12 pm

        Hopmhi,

        Do you recall how often “moderate” Muslims are asked to specifically renounce the militant ones? My point is that the fringe Zionist sites get a pass from the “moderate” ones because they can be the virtual “bomb throwers” and used to shape and gauge public opinion. When a particular position does not go over well as being too extreme, the “mainstream moderates” get to distance themselves from the rhetoric. If the position is not seen as extremist, the mainstream can take to position that ‘everyone agrees.’

        This is my perception. It is quite possible that I’m in error, but I think the track record of pro-Zionism is wanting to have it both ways. How often is a criticism of Israel dismissed based only on the fact that it happens to be a position that say, David Duke espouses?

        Imagine if mainstream Zionist thought had to be filtered through the hate sites espousing its merits.

        What would remain?

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 2:12 pm

        “Can you offer a mainstream site that actually advocates a rejection of Zionism (or at least discusses it as a viable alternative to the status quo)?”

        Look, I understand the game you’re playing. You view all Zionism as extremist, and therefore, you say all sites are basically the same, whether they advocate killing Palestinians en masse or whether they advocate the Clinton parameters and criticize the occupation. Ergo, there’s no difference between Larry Derfner and Avigdor Lieberman because they’re both “Zionist.” This way, you can argue that a “fringe site” actually represents that mainstream because it supports Zionism.

        That’s silly and ironic, because I could make the same argument by grouping a bunch of pro-Palestinian organizations together and argue there’s no difference between Al-Qaeda and Fatah because both support Palestinian nationalism.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 2:14 pm

        OK, so you listed a collection of hard-right sites. I’m not clear as to how this proves your point.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 2:23 pm

        “Do you recall how often “moderate” Muslims are asked to specifically renounce the militant ones? My point is that the fringe Zionist sites get a pass from the “moderate” ones because they can be the virtual “bomb throwers” and used to shape and gauge public opinion. ”

        Well, Lance, when Jews start flying airplanes into big office buildings and comprise a quarter of the world’s population, I imagine that maybe someone would ask us to renounce the more militant among us.

        And we do quite of bit of renouncing, by the way, as anyone who reads the Forward doubtless knows, and we face plenty of calls to do so, if not as many in America as elsewhere.

        “How often is a criticism of Israel dismissed based only on the fact that it happens to be a position that say, David Duke espouses?”

        Not very often. It’s when the position is one that David Duke used to be the only one espousing that criticism faces a problem.

        “When a particular position does not go over well as being too extreme, the “mainstream moderates” get to distance themselves from the rhetoric. If the position is not seen as extremist, the mainstream can take to position that ‘everyone agrees.’”

        It doesn’t work that way. The mainstream moderates by and large pay no attention to the hard-right sites. Those in the Establishment make their positions based on the orientation of their organizations, not on some blogs or op-ed pieces.

      • annie
        August 30, 2011, 2:24 pm

        I understand the game you’re playing. You view all Zionism as extremist

        hophmi, note the benign use of the word ‘settler’ for what normally might be regarded by an average person as an extremist action, colonizing land that is occupied. the term ‘muslim extremist’ is used quite commonly but there are way over 100,000 extremists settlers yet a term like ‘jewish extremist’ isn’t common in the least and is reserved for famous people who have murdered dozens. it’s a complete double standard. zionism, perhaps not as an ideal but certainly in the application, has always operated in the extreme because it has always been grounded in colonization. that will never be seen as a ‘normal’ activity by a healthy mind. only a brainwashed person could view colonization as a moderate position. it’s apatheid, apartheid is extremist. only if you live in some sheltered mindframe that divorces the states actions for an ‘ideal’ of zionism, an ideal that could never exist in a land already inhabited by another people and remain jewish democratic, an ideal divorced from ethnic cleansing and slaughter and occupation, only then could you consider zionism something other than extremist. iow, if one were delusional. it’s like thinking you can drink whiskey all day everyday and not get drunk. you can’t separate the reality from the fantasy. zionism has consequences and you can’t have the ideal divorced from the consequences. that would be incomprehensible to a rational mind.

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 2:27 pm

        hopmhi,

        The compilation for links I posted has a web site to examine Islamic texts (USC-MSA – link to usc.edu ) as an aid in understanding of views held by various participants in the region’s conflicts.

        Why is there no link for examining Jewish sacred texts (or is there and I have overlooked it)? Do their sacred texts not apply (or do they get a pass outright)?

        I think these are valid observations. I think the slant is consistently for the “official narrative” of Israel as beleaguered victim of Arab/Muslim/Palestinian aggression; facts be damned.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 2:56 pm

        “the term ‘muslim extremist’ is used quite commonly but there are way over 100,000 extremists settlers yet a term like ‘jewish extremist’ isn’t common in the least and is reserved for famous people who have murdered dozens. it’s a complete double standard.”

        How so? I think the word extremist is used quite frequently to refer to the messianic settlers like those in Hebron. The term “Muslim extremist” (most would say radical Islamist, I think) refers to those who advocate the methods of Al-Qaeda. There’s no double standard here.

        “zionism, perhaps not as an ideal but certainly in the application, has always operated in the extreme because it has always been grounded in colonization.”

        That’s your extremist opinion. Most would not say Zionism is per se extreme. If Zionism is extreme, American nationalism, also grounded in “colonization”, is more extreme.

        “only a brainwashed person could view colonization as a moderate position.”

        Let’s stop with this stupid game. Only a brainwashed person could view a state comprised mostly of refugees as being simply another colonial project.

        ” it’s apatheid, apartheid is extremist.”

        Calling it apartheid is an extremist position.

        “you can’t separate the reality from the fantasy. zionism has consequences and you can’t have the ideal divorced from the consequences. that would be incomprehensible to a rational mind.”

        So does the Holocaust, Arab anti-semitism, Palestinian support for Hitler, the work of the Yishuv to build a democratic state, the use of suicide bombing by Palestinians, the hijacking of airplanes, 9/11, and US foreign policy. These all have consequences as well.

        You want to talk about consequences, talk about ALL of the consequences, not just the few that are convenient to your radical politics.

      • annie
        August 30, 2011, 3:19 pm

        I think the word extremist is used quite frequently to refer to the messianic settlers like those in Hebron. The term “Muslim extremist” (most would say radical Islamist, I think) refers to those who advocate the methods of Al-Qaeda. There’s no double standard here.

        no double standard? between violent jewish messianic settlers who follow rabbis who write about killing gentile babies and muslims extremists?

        interesting perspective. plus i note you didn’t use the term jewish extremist.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 3:26 pm

        “no double standard? between violent jewish messianic settlers who follow rabbis who write about killing gentile babies and muslims extremists?”

        No, because there’s simply no comparison here. Rabbis who write about killing gentile babies are a small extremist fringe. You can count them on one hand. Their followers amount to a few thousand people. They are not mainstream rabbinical authorities. Their followers amount to a few thousand people.

        Regrettably, those who provide justifications for killing civilians through suicide bombing in the Muslim world are part of the mainstream and represent a constituency that amounts to, at a minimum, tens of millions of people. Mainstream Islamic websites like Islamonline do this. Scholars like al-Qaradawi do this.

      • Mooser
        August 30, 2011, 3:30 pm

        “Do I have the answer for how to fix the policies, or even which policies need fixing?”

        Gee, and no matter how hard he tries, he never seems to come up with anything. That’s because you can become an adman with a sixth-grade education, but to be an Israel policy-maker takes several PHDs.

        That article is just one long explication of that old adage about people never understanding what they are paid not to understand.

      • Woody Tanaka
        August 30, 2011, 3:30 pm

        “Palestinian support for Hitler”

        This is when you know you are dealing with an unreachable lunatic.

        This lie marks someone for whom primative tribalism trumps even historical truth.

        It is similar to the libel told about those fleeing for their lives from Jewish depravities in the 47-48 Nakba war as “getting out of their homes so the Arab armies can do the job of wiping out the Jews.” That statement was perhaps the most barbaric lie ever told about a people.

        You know when someone spouts one of these, that you are dealing with a wild-eyed crazy who is immune to any attempt at reason.

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 3:33 pm

        So does the Holocaust, Arab anti-semitism, Palestinian support for Hitler, the work of the Yishuv to build a democratic state, the use of suicide bombing by Palestinians, the hijacking of airplanes, 9/11, and US foreign policy. These all have consequences as well.

        So does that fact that the Palestinians did not perpetrate the Holocaust, the fact of Jewish/Israeli anti-Arab/Muslim/Palestinian rhetoric and oppression, the fact of Zionist collusion with the Nazis (see the work of Lenni Brenner), the fact of a claimed “democratic” state built upon a double-standard of ethnic favoritism and apartheid (generally accepted as existing, even by mainstream Zionists), the creation of the state of Israel by way of terrorist bombings (with the further indignity of trying to lay blame upon the Arab regionals), the fact of multiple false-flag attacks attempted (and perpetrated) by Israel, the fact of Israeli perfidy against the USS Liberty, the fact of a refusal by US law enforcement and intelligence organizations to further investigate the Israeli component of 9/11, and the fact of US elected representatives so beholden to the Israeli Lobby that it unduly influences the choices they make in regards to US foreign policy…do these all have consequences as well?

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 3:49 pm

        Not very often. It’s when the position is one that David Duke used to be the only one espousing that criticism faces a problem.

        Unless it’s in regards to Zionism. David Duke’s race separatist views more closely resemble those of Zionism than not. It’s plainly evident that part of Israeli Zionists’ outrage against the Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians is that they do not “know their place” and pay proper deference to Israeli Jews.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 3:56 pm

        “Zionist collusion with the Nazis”, “Israeli perfidy against the USS Liberty”, “refusal by US law enforcement and intelligence organizations to further investigate the Israeli component of 9/11″

        It’s when you hear stuff like this that you know you’re dealing with lunatics.

        Have a nice day, Lance.

      • hophmi
        August 30, 2011, 3:57 pm

        “That statement was perhaps the most barbaric lie ever told about a people.”

        Really? That’s the most barbaric thing you’ve ever heard about a people?

        Ok, Woody Woodpecker.

      • Cliff
        August 30, 2011, 4:36 pm

        The Palestinians did not support Hitler. The fact that you would say such a revolting lie, shows what a lunatic you are.

        The Mufti had no substantial support and no meaningful following in Palestinian society.

        And did anyone notice this clown’s response to the question of Zionism being extreme or not? Instead of answering the question, he diverted attention to American nationalism (Manifest Destiny).

        Yes, no shit Sherlock. Who said American nationalism WASNT extreme??

        You are so full of it. And I’m disappointed in the lack of rebuttals to Hophmi’s f%^king lie that Palestinians supported Hitler.

        You are a douchebag Hophmi. I’ll refer to Hostage’s well-researched rebuttal to this ignorant Zionist meme later. At library, on Ipad. Don’t censor this post Phil, the guy deserves to be called out harshly for his bullshit.

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 5:31 pm

        “Zionist collusion with the Nazis”, “Israeli perfidy against the USS Liberty”, “refusal by US law enforcement and intelligence organizations to further investigate the Israeli component of 9/11″

        It’s when you hear stuff like this that you know you’re dealing with lunatics.

        51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazi by LENNI BRENNER – link to counterpunch.org

        [E]ditorialist Edward Mortimer declared that “Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s.”

        Rockets, Napalm, Torpedoes & Lies – Israel’s Attack on the Liberty, Revisited by JEFFREY ST. CLAIR – link to counterpunch.org

        More proof has recently come to light from the Israeli side. A few years after Attack on the Liberty was originally published, Ennes got a call from Evan Toni, an Israeli pilot. Toni told Ennes that he had just read his book and wanted to tell him his story. Toni said that he was the pilot in the first Israeli Mirage fighter to reach the Liberty. He immediately recognized the ship to be a US Navy vessel. He radioed Israeli air command with this information and asked for instructions. Toni said he was ordered to “attack.” He refused and flew back to the air base at Ashdod. When he arrived he was summarily arrested for disobeying orders.

        9/11: THE TRUTH COMES OUT
        Israel’s 9/11 connection exposed – link to antiwar.com

        “A few of the operatives are well known in the Israeli intelligence community. The report cited the names of Peer Segalovitz (military registration number 5087989) and Aran Ofek, son of a renowned two-star general in the Israeli army. The network targeted some of the most sensitive sites in the U.S., such as Tanker Air Force Base near Oklahoma City. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force’s Office of Special Investigation sent a letter to the Justice Department on May 16 of last year to ask for assistance in a case against four Israelis suspected of spying: Yaron Ohana, Ronen Kalfon, Zeev Cohen and Naor Topaz.”

        And that Justin Raimondo piece is pretty old yet those angles were not worked for fear of where they might lead.

        Though the official 9/11 commission has admitted it has been lied to to the point of its report being essentially worthless (see: The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies – link to salem-news.com ), for some reason there is no real urgency to determine where the truth actually lies.

        Looney is as looney does, eh hopmhi?

        “Have a nice day,” indeed.

      • Cliff
        August 30, 2011, 6:44 pm

        Ok, here is Hostage’s excellent debunking of several Zionist memes, including the disgusting lie told by the disgusting troll, hophmi:

        (this post was actually in response to hophmi as well, he didn’t respond to Hostage’s rebuttal)

        So, far you have been getting incompletes. You have never provided any evidence that the Palestinian people rejected the principle of partition, much less that they supported or were represented by the Arab League and the Mufti.

        *By 1930, many Palestinian nationalists viewed the Mufti and the Supreme Muslim Cuncil as a group who had misused their religion for partisan political purposes; who had brought no benefit to the country; and whose policies would only lead to expulsion and destruction of the country, e.g. Mohammad Tawil and Sheikh As’ad al Shuqayri of Acre, the father of PLO founder and chairman Ahmad Shuqayri, wrote articles in support of cooperation with the Zionist Organization. He was widely known for his opposition to the nationalist movement and involvement in land sales. He did not see the Jerusalem Mufti as a serious religious figure. In mid-1935 the Mayor of Jerusalem, Dr. Mustafa al Khalidi, told his deputy Daniel Oster “We must recognize facts. The Jews have entered the country, become citizens, have become Palestinians, and they cannot be thrown into the sea. Likewise, they have bought land and received deeds in exchange for money and we must recognize them. There is no point in closing our eyes about such clear things.” See Hillel Cohen, “Army of Shadows: Palestinian Collaboration with Zionism, 1917-1948″, University of California Press, 2008, pages 84-85.

        *In 1937 the US Consul General at Jerusalem told the State Department that the Mufti refused the principle of partition and declined to consider it. He said the Emir Abdullah of Transjordan urged acceptance on the ground that realities must be faced. The Consul also noted that Nashashibi was willing to negotiate for favorable modifications.

        *In “Pan-Arabism Before Nasser”, Michael Doran reported that Eliyahu Sasson made at least two trips in late 1946 to lobby Egyptian officials regarding the partition of Palestine. Sasson reported that he had been warmly welcomed by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the Secretary General of the Arab League. Doran says that King Faruq and other palace advisers received reports on the talks and did nothing to scuttle them.

        *Joseph Heller, “The birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his critics”, University Press of Florida, 2000, says that in the Spring of 1946 Sasson was dispatched to Egypt and that he reported that, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, there was a virtually unanimous consensus on partition among the members of the Arab League.

        *Morris, Shlaim, Rogan, Flapan, and others report that Abdullah and the Jewish Agency negotiated an agreement to peacefully partition Palestine in November of 1947.

        *The UN Yearbook for 1946-47 says that during the deliberations on Palestine many members of the United Nations questioned the status of the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) and the Jewish Agency. They expressed the view that only States should be heard in the General Assembly as the Charter had not provided for hearing “non-governmental organizations” (NGOs) there. The Jewish Agency had a special status under the terms of the mandate, but the AHC did not. According to the Yearbook: “The Egyptian representative explained, in reply to various statements, that the Arab States did not represent the Palestinian Arab population.”

        Ezra Danin worked in various capacities in the Jewish Agency and the Arab department, “Sherut Yediot”, the “Information Service” of the Haganah. In January of 1948, Danin wrote “I believe the majority of the Palestinian masses accept the partition as a fiat accompli and do not believe it possible to overcome or reject it.” See Document 90, page 128 “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979.

        There was a nine year hiatus after the British mandatory authorities outlawed the Arab Higher Committee. It was reestablished by the Arab League, not by the Palestinian people. In February of 1948, the Arab League decided not to recognize the AHC as the representative of the Palestinian people. Thereafter, all of the Leagues’ affairs were handled through its own Palestine Council, not through the Mufti or the AHC. See Issa Khalaf, Politics in Palestine: Arab factionalism and social disintegration, 1939-1948, University of New York Press, 1991, ISBN 0-7914-0708-X, page 290.

        *David Ben-Gurion advised Sharett about the public sentiment of the Palestinians: “They, the decisive majority of them do not want to fight us.” See Ben Gurion to Sharett, March 14, 1948, Document 274, on page 460 of “Political and Diplomatic Documents Central Zionist Archives/Israel State Archives, December 1947- May 1948, Jerusalem, 1979.

        *Before the Deir Yassin massacre, the US Minister in Saudi Arabia told Secretary Marshall that the Saudi’s and Abdullah had warned the other members of the Arab League (in March of 1948) that the partition was a civil matter and that the Arab states shouldn’t take any action that the Security Council might interpret as aggression.

        *In the UNSCOP and General Assembly Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine hearings, the representatives of the Jewish Agency testified that their proposed plan for partition could be peacefully implemented because the majority of Palestinians accepted the inevitability of partition and either supported the plan or would acquiesce to it. On March 19th, 1948 the representative of the Jewish Agency changed his story and told the Security Council that on the question of implementation by peaceful means, that if left alone considerable sections of Palestinian Arabs would be willing to cooperate or acquiesce, but that armed intervention by neighboring States completely changed that situation. See page 9 of 19 in the verbatim minutes of the 271st meeting of the Security Council. link to un.org

        *On March 5 1948, the UN Security Council refused to accept the plan of partition as a basis for Security Council action. After deliberations on a trusteeship proposal it sent the Question of Palestine back to an Emergency Session of the General Assembly for further consideration. On May 14, 1948 the General Assembly suspended implementation of the plan of partition by the Palestine Commission and empowered a Mediator to promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine. See UN General Assembly resolution 186(S2)

        *Bernadotte’s diary said the Mufti had no credibility with Palestinians on account of his unrealistic predictions regarding the defeat of the Jewish militias. Bernadotte said “It would seem as though in existing circumstances most of the Palestinian Arabs would be quite content to be incorporated in Transjordan.” see Folke Bernadotte, “To Jerusalem”, Hodder and Stoughton, 1951, pages 112-13.

        *The rulers of the overwhelming majority of the territory of the former Palestine mandate included the Hashemites, Nashashibis, and other groups who had accepted the principle of partition. Secretary of state Marshall documented Shertok’s discussion of a cable that he received which outlined a modus vivendi agreement between the Haganah and Col. Desmond Goldie, assistant to Brigadier Glubb commander of the Arab Legion to coordinate their operations and avoid clashes.

        *The Jewish Agency and provisional government of Israel talked about acceptance, but when the deadlines came to implement the plan for economic union; the plan for the protection of minorities; and the plan for the Corpus Separatum they always rejected resolution 181(II) in actual practice. Rabbi Hillel Silver only “accepted” the plan of partition on a conditional basis – subject to “further discussions of the constitutional and territorial provisions”. 64 years later we are still listening to Zionist officials shreying about the status of Jerusalem and the impossibility of granting Arabs constitutional equality. The representative of the AHC NGO was in no official position to reject the plan on behalf of the Palestinians, and suggested that the United Nations consult the wishes of the owners of the country. FYI both Hamas and the Israeli government express similar sentiments today. Any final settlement will be subject to national plebiscites. For the remarks of the Jewish Agency and AHC spokesmen see the 1947 FRUS, Near East and Africa, Volume V, page 1165

        *The Mufti did not enjoy much popular support and all his efforts to organize a popular resistance to the Partition Resolution were unsuccessful. According to Ian Bickerton, Carla Klausner, “A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict”, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2004, few Palestinians joined the Arab Liberation Army and many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state (page 88).

        *Ben-Gurion rebuffed the various efforts of more pragmatic Palestinian Arabs to reach a modus vivendi since it was his “belief … that Zionist expansionism would be better served by leaving the leadership of the Palestinians in the hands of the extremist Mufti than in the hands of a ‘moderate’ opposition. ‘Rely on the Mufti’ became his motto.” Blocked by Zionist policy from officially expressing their opposition to war, the Palestinian Arabs arranged “non-aggression” pacts with their Jewish neighbors. The relatively few who did take up arms did so primarily to defend themselves against feared attacks by the Jews. See the review of Simha Flapan’s The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities

        *During the hearings on Israel’s membership in the UN Abba Eban pointed out that the Arab States could not be logically expected to recognize the State of Israel if the United Nations hesitated to do so itself. He said that the Committee should not delay the decisive moment when the Arab world would recognize Israel as a partner in its destiny and in the progress of Asia. See the verbatim minutes in A/AC.24/SR.45
        5 May 1949

        *On the very same day that the UN officially recognized the state of Israel, all of the Arab states signed the Lausanne protocol and accepted the map from UN resolution 181(II) as the basis for negotiation.

        *A Tale of Two Cities: The Rhodes and Lausanne Conferences, 1949 Neil Caplan Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring, 1992), pp. 5-34 points out that the first head of the PLO, Ahmad Shuqayri, was a member of the Syrian delegation to the Lausanne Conference. He said the adoption of the protocol proved the Arabs had not suffered from a “no” complex during the period of 1947-49. Three days before the Arabs accepted the protocol Walter Eytan, head of the Israeli delegation, said “it would be a great thing for us if the Arabs, who had never been willing to touch November 29th with a barge pole, agreed to take this as a base de travail.” He had predicted that the Arabs would never agree to sign. Nonetheless, ignoramuses like yourself repeat the myth that the Palestinians rejected the plan.

        *Of course the PLO continued to cite resolution 181(II) as the basis of UN recognition of the right of Palestinians to a state of their own

        Original thread:
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • LanceThruster
        August 30, 2011, 7:19 pm

        Cliff,

        You mean hopmhi was already called out on his sophistry and yet he continues to promulgate the same nonsense?!?!

        I’m shocked, shocked I tell you! (in reality, I’m not really shocked. It’s actually rather unsurprising)

      • Cliff
        August 30, 2011, 8:40 pm

        Bump, waiting for the liar to respond.

        Hophmi said Palestinians supported Hitler.

        Let’s hear him support that claim.

  13. radii
    August 29, 2011, 4:38 pm

    the tactics are well-worn to shape a negative public perception of anything:

    -negative-associate
    -use hot-button code words
    repeat repeat repeat
    repeat repeat repeat
    repeat repeat repeat
    repeat repeat repeat

  14. MRW
    August 29, 2011, 5:37 pm

    Hophmi, you are the one who is completely in the dark about Israel’s right-wing involvement in all this. They’ve been in it up to their teeth for years.

    See my comment at MRW August 29, 2011 at 5:32 pm.

    Jewsonfirst.org covered this over four years ago. You simply do not know what you are talking about, so stop torturing Annie. It appears you barely read the salient links on this blog that go against your understanding (or maybe it’s because I link them). It’s time you started.

  15. MRW
    August 29, 2011, 6:10 pm

    BTW, the network is not small. It also involves right-wing Canadian Jewish extremists, where the JDL is allowed to speak as a voice for Jews. The network functions mainly out of Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, but is also funded by Jewish bigwigs in Vancouver. (For non-Americans, the JDL was declared a terrorist organization in the US over 20 years ago by the US State Dept.)

    I don’t have time to corral all the links for my statement. I would have to go through five years of stuff and don’t have the time. So take this in the spirit of ‘duly noted’ for the time being.

  16. Kathleen
    August 29, 2011, 7:36 pm

    Other sites covering this report

    Fear, Incorporated: Who’s paying for all that Islamophobic paranoia?
    Posted By Stephen M. Walt Friday, August 26, 2011
    link to walt.foreignpolicy.com

    link to thinkprogress.org

    link to presstv.ir

    link to huffingtonpost.com

    Meet An Islamophobia Network Funder: Richard Scaife
    link to thinkprogress.org

  17. Sin Nombre
    August 29, 2011, 7:43 pm

    I think hophmi argues well here that, as regards the majority of the culprits in question (Pipes, et. al.) it’s not their religion (judaic religiousness, that is) that’s motivating them primarily.

    And he also makes some good points on the evidence that it’s not some first-and-foremost desire to serve Israel that’s their primary motivation either.

    But this might be just misleadingly refined: What about a just more generalized primary concern for the interests of jews as a whole?

    While if this is the case one would expect to see at least some natural affection or affiliation of them for Israel, it wouldn’t necessarily scream out. But what one would also expect to see is somewhat of a concentration at the least (if not an obsession) on or with issues related to jewish interests.

    And, from what I have seen, this seems to fit for a number of the guys in question.

    In any event the question then isn’t … “do we see these guys proclaiming their religion or their love of Israel all the time?,” but instead “do we ever see these guys devoting themselves with the anywhere near the same passion and devotion that they bring to this Islamic business to any other issues that don’t involve jewish interests?”

    After all, one classic hallmark test of anti-semitism is an obsessive or semi-obsessive negative “semetic-centrism,” so to speak.

    To the extent that’s a valid test then—and I think it’s undeniable—why is it an illegitimate benchmark when one observes an obsessive or semi-obsessive *positive*
    “semetic-centrism”?

    • Walid
      August 30, 2011, 4:30 am

      It’s obvious Hophmi has not seen the video. Here’s a short-short 12 minute condensed version to help him understand what it’s about:

      link to video.google.com

      Right Web/IPS that tracks orgs such as Clarion wrote this about it:

      “After its initial 2005 release, showings of Obsession spurred heated debates regarding “Islamophobia”on U.S. college campuses,[10] where the film has been aggressively promoted by David Horowitz as part of his “terrorism awareness project.”[11] When copies of the DVD appeared in swing-state newspapers and mailings during the last months of the 2008 election season, some observers charged that Clarion and the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), which aided the distribution effort, were running a stealth campaign on behalf of Sen. John McCain(R-AZ) and other Republican candidates who had made “battling the threat posed by radical Islamists a central platform of their campaign, while presenting their Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL], as being weak on the issue.”[12]

      When a small-town newspaper in Pennsylvania, the Patriot News, investigated the source of the DVD mailing, it discovered that the Clarion Fund website, RadicalIslam.org, had posted a partisan political report supporting the McCain campaign. The report stated, “McCain’s policies seek to confront radical Islamic extremism and terrorism and roll it back while [Barack] Obama’s, although intending to do the same, could in fact make the situation facing the West even worse.” The site removed the report after the Patriot News reporter questioned Clarion’s director of communications.[13]

      A spokesperson for EMET, described by the Inter Press Service as a “group of hard-line U.S. neo-conservatives and former Israeli diplomats,” claimed its goal was to take advantage of the intense media attention in the swing states and not to influence the election.[14]

      According to the New York Times, Obsession served as a “flashpoint in the bitter campus debate over the Middle East, not just because of its clips from Arab television rarely shown in the West, including scenes of suicide bombers being recruited and inducted, but also because of its pro-Israel distribution network. When a Middle East discussion group organized a showing at New York University … it found that the distributors of Obsession were requiring those in attendance to register at IsraelActivism.com, and that digital pictures of the events be sent to Hasbara Fellowships, a group set up to counter anti-Israel sentiment on college campuses.”[15]

      Full article on Clarion:
      link to rightweb.irc-online.org

      Clarion didn’t stop with “Obsession”; it went on to make another documentary called “The Third Jihad” that some will remember was advertised on the Haaretz web page for months a couple of years back, and more recently it released a third called “Iranium” and from the title it’s obvious what it’s about.

  18. POA
    August 29, 2011, 10:42 pm

    OK, so I’ll ask again, seeing as how the “fair and balanced” moderator here saw fit to censor my first attempt…..

    Why isn’t Alan Dershowitz on this list?

  19. Eva Smagacz
    August 30, 2011, 4:56 am

    Hi POA,

    I think that Dershowitz is not on the list as he is not an advocate, he is a defence lawyer. He does not create high enough volume of content for propaganda to be disseminated by sympathetic media creating a desired Zeitgeist. (Book or two does not count)
    His support for Israel is reactive – he creates justifications for Israel’s immoral actions.

  20. Nevada Ned
    August 30, 2011, 10:27 am

    Reporters are only as good as their sources. Steve Emerson, a reporter, has long been associated with Israeli sources. Who do you think has an interest in promoting hatred of Moslems and hatred of Arabs? Duh.

    Emerson has been wildly inaccurate. He blamed the first (1993) bombing of the World Trade Center (which was only partially successful) to Serbian terrorists. In fact, it was middle-eastern terrorists. Emerson was spectacularly wrong.
    Two years later, Emergon blamed the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City to “middle East terrorists”. In fact, it was Timothy McVeigh. Emerson was spectacularly wrong, again.
    I sometimes wonder, has this guy ever been RIGHT? But that hasn’t stopped him…

    Check out Emerson’s page on Wikipedia. What is striking is how much respect Emerson has received, from respectable sources. Emerson has testified to Congress many times on the topic of terrorism.

    Yes, there has been some criticism, here and there. My favorite criticism is from Gloria Cooper in the Columbia Journalism Review. She criticized a book that Emerson co-authored, in which he claims that the airplane Pan Am 103 was brought down by Iran. (The current story in Washington is that Libya did it).
    Gloria Cooper noted the “striking similarities” between some passages in Emerson’s book and some reports in a Syracuse newspaper. Notice that Gloria Cooper didn’t actually use the dreaded word “plagiarism”…

    As for what religion Emerson is, I don’t know and it doesn’t matter. But check out Emerson’s WIkipedia page, for sure.

  21. Mooser
    August 30, 2011, 3:33 pm

    Wow, this subject seems to scare Hophmi even more than a discussion of circumcision.
    There is, of course, no point in reading any of his comments (I’ve got more important things to do, nobody cleaned the cat’s litter box last night) but the sheer number of comments (as opposed to the posts he doesn’t bother with) tells the story pretty plainly.

  22. hophmi
    August 30, 2011, 3:54 pm

    “Wow, this subject seems to scare Hophmi even more than a discussion of circumcision.”

    Not really. I do believe it’s important to get cause and effect right, however, and support for Israel is the effect here, not the cause. And Robert Spencer is, of course, not Jewish. But go ahead Moosehead, continue to make a giant ass of yourself. It’s what you do best here, because you jolly well don’t provide substance.

Leave a Reply