For example, there is no situation in Western culture wherein murdering one’s daughter could be a deed that brings honor to the family. In many Arab and some non-Arab Muslim countries, murder is what is expected of the father if his daughter is accused (merely accused) of pre-marital sex.  The Arab family’s honor is restored by what in the West is a heinous crime. Such murders are far more widespread in the Muslim world than many are willing to acknowledge.  They are known as honor-killings[i].

Similarly, martyrdom-via-suicide boggles the Western mind.  Islamic law prohibits suicide; but recent judgments by leading Muslim clerics, although contested by some, state unequivocally that suicide bombings are a legitimate and laudable form of martyrdom in Jihad.  They bring honor to family and community, and are seen as a courageous deed for which the deceased perpetrator will be rewarded with the Muslim jihadist warrior’s seventy-two dark-eyed virgin women when united with Allah.[ii]

Despite these examples of cultural chasms, it is still a surprise to the Western mind that motherly love, at least among some in the Gaza Strip, acquires a valence far different from that in the West.

Umm Nidal (her nom de guerre, lit. “mother of struggle,” her real name is Mariam Farahat), the Gaza mother of six sons, did not lament that three of them had died as suicide bombers.  Rather she publicly rejoiced in their “martyrdom” and fervently prayed that the other three would follow the same path; after all, what greater joy can a Muslim mother know than living to see her sons blow themselves up while in the prime of their lives, taking with them as many Jews and other non-believers as possible?

To acknowledge her roll in raising sons with such a meritorious sense of duty to Allah and Islam, the voters in the Gaza Strip elected Umm Nidal to Hamas’ parliament, even though she has no prerequisites for public service.

To the present writer’s knowledge, there is no other culture in the world, or across all of world history, that so honors suicide and mass murder, and so thoroughly vitiates the most basic human instinct of a mother’s love for her children.

But honoring suicidal mass murderers is not new in Palestinian society.  For decades prior to the creation of the Palestinian Authority (1993), Arafat honored suicide bombers with stirring eulogies and generous bequests to surviving families, as did other Arab countries and Iran.

Once the Palestinian Authority was legislated into existence by the Oslo Accords, Arafat, and after his death Mahmoud Abbas, named public places, schools, soccer fields, and summer camps in memory of suicide bombers in order to enhance the degree to which their “martyrdom” could inspire others to end their lives in a similar fashion.

There have been hundreds of suicide bombings since the Oslo Accords, most perpetrated by Hamas.  Happily the majority have been thwarted by the IDF, but the worst and most infamous include the Dolphinarium massacre, killing dozens of young teens; the Park Hotel massacre with scores killed and hundreds wounded during a Passover Seder; and the Sbarro pizza restaurant massacre.  Each became a source of rejoicing among Palestinians.

Most such attacks have been perpetrated by men, but women have come to play a surprisingly significant role as well. Arafat’s PLO, Hamas, and other terrorist groups lured young women in the prime of their lives into the strangely twisted psyche of the suicide bomber by offering them the opportunity, despite the fact that they are merely women and cannot fight as can men, to strike a blow for their people, their country, their future state, their religion, and for Allah.  Arafat called Palestinian female suicide bombers his “army of roses,” and praised them and their families for their dedication and courage.

Chechen and Sri Lankan women were the first female suicide bombers, but the first Palestinian one was Wafa Idris, a West Bank woman who disguised herself as a doctor and used an ambulance to enter Israel from the West Bank and blow herself up in downtown Jerusalem, killing one and wounding scores. Arafat crowned her a hero and throughout the Arab world she was used as a poster-child to recruit others.

In-depth analyses of the phenomenon of the Palestinian female suicide bomber reveal the cruel and cynical strategies developed by Fatah and Hamas for identifying, approaching, isolating, and brain-washing young, depressed, self-described hopeless Muslim women, so they could be trained to carry out “martyrdom missions.”

Hamas and Fatah recruiters scout towns, villages and mosques, looking for women who show signs of depression.  Such signs include a history of attempted suicide, confidential conversations with friends that reach Hamas or Fatah, a personal religious revival where a previously un-religious woman suddenly begins to frequent her local mosque, or confidential conversations with an imam who passes them on to the recruiter.

It quotes a “senior military official in Israel’s northern command” saying that, while Hizbullah may not want another war with Israel, Iran would order it to attack Israel in case of an Israeli strike on Iran. In that case, says the official, the Israel-Hizbullah clash would go “much faster” than the 2006Second Lebanon War.

That conflict, which lasted 34 days, ended with Hizbullah somewhat shaken by the prowess shown by Israel’s air force, mainly in the war’s opening days when it took out Hizbullah’s long-range rocket launchers in Beirut.

But it also ended with Hizbullah still essentially in control of southern Lebanon. Since then—despite halfhearted efforts by a beefed-up UNIFIL—Hizbullah has only tightened its grip not only over the south but over Lebanon as a whole.

And most problematically, it has kept importing Iranian rockets, missiles, and other weaponry via Syria, and now—UNIFIL or no UNIFIL—has over 50,000 rockets and missiles that, as Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah boasts, can hit any part of Israel.

Those considerations—the inconclusive results of the 2006 war and the power Hizbullah has amassed since that time—are undoubtedly what leads the senior military official to tell AFP that another conflict would be “much shorter, much faster…. The most important mission today is to win decisively in any kind of war in Lebanon. If you win, you win—everybody sees it.”

The official then cites what he says will be Israel’s “biggest challenge,” namely:

Hezbollah’s positioning of weapons in the heart of civilian areas in around 100 Lebanese towns and villages along the border.

“In the villages there are three-story houses: on one floor there are rockets, then there is a family on the next floor, then a (military) headquarters then another family. The people that live there are human shields….

“Every Shiite village has become such a compound. The great challenge will be to deal with all these compounds.”

Indeed, last year Israel released declassified maps to the Washington Post showing part of Hizbullah’s network of military facilities in southernLebanon. It was a way of signaling that Israel knows where these are and is capable of hitting them if necessary.

But apart from the operational aspect, what Hizbullah means to confront Israel with—by ensconcing itself in the homes of families, thereby dissolving any distinction between fighters and civilians, gun-toting warriors and mothers and babies—is a “moral” challenge.

Peace fever is the disease consuming Israel as surely as the Black Death took Europe. If the Dutch traded fortunes for flowers, the Israelis have traded away most of their territory for worthless pieces of paper that last about as long as tulips do. Mostly, like Madoff’s investments, after they wither and die it turns out that they were never worth anything to begin with.

Take the Camp David Accords, greeted with romantic fervor in Jerusalem and European capitals, but resented and despised by Egyptians because they were a reminder of how their army had failed to destroy Israel. It was a worthless accord that gave Egypt a vast amount of territory in exchange for maintaining a status quo that it had no choice but to maintain after losing multiple wars. With the fall of Mubarak, it was revealed that the Accords were never more than moonbeams and fairy dust. A puff of Arab Spring and they were gone.

Camp David was an illusion, but the Oslo Accords are a delusion. A tulip economy in which Israel doles out fortunes in money, land and power in exchange for the promise of peace and an end to the violence… tomorrow, always tomorrow. The most devastating impact of the delusion isn’t on the cemeteries where children lie side by side with soldiers, on the broken homes and synagogues of Gaza, or on the tightening circle of terror around Jerusalem. As with all delusions, its most devastating impact is on the mind.

The only way to sustain the peace delusion is by blaming Israel for the failure of the peace process. Blaming the terrorists opens up a hopeless catalog of violence, corruption, incitement and madness. There is no way to catalog all that and still honestly go on believing that peace is possible. The only way to keep the lie of peace alive is by blaming Israel.

The peace disease infects its victims with self-hatred as the only way to keep the pathogen alive. And the disease has no end. There was a time when Arafat was the guest of honor among peaceniks; now it’s Hamas. Peter Beinart is busy explaining that Hamas really isn’t that bad once you get to know them. And why not? It’s what the peace camp did with Arafat and that worked out great. Why not do it with Hamas?

The internal logic of the disease is inescapably consistent. We had to believe in Arafat in order to  believe in peace. Now that our peace partners have expressed a preference for Hamas over Fatah, we have to believe in Hamas, in order to believe in peace. To believe in peace we have to believe in a peace partner to have peace with. We have to believe that there is hope for peace with every terrorist, that the lack of peace is our fault– not theirs.

Sick? Demented? Twisted? All of the above, but also completely logical. If you are going to be delusional, then it is best to be consistently delusional. Why be neurotic, when you can be flat out insane? Why settle for a second rate phobia when you can go for full on schizophrenia? Hope and faith often dance close to the level of madness. Sustaining misdirected hope in the face of reality requires a great deal of faith or delusion.

Delusional does not mean stupid. Highly intelligent people are more likely to be deluded because they have a greater capacity for rationalizing the delusion. A stupid person would assume that being shot at marks the end of peace negotiations. It takes a highly intelligent person to rationalize the shots as not an attack on him, but on the negotiations, which are the only way to stop the cycle of violence.

On January 23, the Facebook page of CAIR-MN announced that Best Buy would be a “Platinum Sponsor” of its fifth annual banquet. CAIR was labeled by the federal government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity that was shut down for fundraising for the terrorist group Hamas, whose charter calls for the extermination of Jews.

CAIR grew out of the Islamic Association of Palestine, another group that was shut down for being a Hamas front. The Muslim Brotherhood’s secret Palestine Committee in the U.S., set up to support Hamas, listed CAIR as a “working organizations” in one of its documents in 1994.

In a 2007 federal court filing, it is stated that, “From its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists” and “the conspirators agreed to use deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists.” District Judge Jorge Solis ruled that the government provided “ample evidence” tying CAIR to Hamas to justify its designation as an “unindicted co-conspirator.”

This information can easily be found in a quick Internet search, but Best Buy wasn’t simply negligent. After the story broke, Best Buy could have said it acted hastily and would change course. Instead, the company boasted that the donation proves its good will and tolerance.

Best Buy’s customers and employees around the world represent a variety of faiths and denominations. We respect that diversity, and choose to engage with our customers, employees and communities in ways that reflect their traditions and maintain good relationships for Best Buy,” a statement on Facebook reads.

Nearly 5,000 people signed the pledge within the first 24 hours to boycott Best Buy until it rescinds its support for CAIR. Add your name to the list by clicking here.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (left) with Mustafa Barghouti, regular speaker with Olive Tree Initiative

The Olive Tree Initiative (OTI), the self-described “non-partisan college educational program” operating out of numerous universities, has, since its founding in 2007, received the support of a bevy of rabidly anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish individuals and groups, many with connections to terrorist organizations and their apologists, including Hamas.

One such notable OTI supporter is Palestinian political leader Mustafa Barghouti, head of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI), a Palestinian political party founded in 2002 as a purported “democratic third force” between the “corruption” of the Palestinian political umbrella group Fatah and the “extremism” of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Barghouti has not only served as a lecturer for the OTI for many years, but in 2009 his organization, the PNI, was thanked for being an “Institiutional Supporter” of the program. An overview of Barghouti’s background validates why critics of the OTI believe the organization’s purpose is to manufacture anti-Israel advocates, all the while masquerading as a group dedicated to promoting “understanding” between Israelis and Palestinians.

Barghouti’s antipathy for Israelis may run in his family, given that his cousin, Marwan Barghouti, led the First and Second Intifadas and is currently serving five life sentences for murder in Israel. While Barghouti has publicly portrayed himself as a promoter of non-violence and an advocate of a two-state solution, he has also shown a disdain for the political process, having once proclaimed that “there’s no use in meetings with Israelis and there is no peace partner in Israel.”

Nevertheless, the reality is that Barghouti has played a leading role in the Fatah-Hamas coalition, a role which includes sidling up to the genocidal terrorists of Hamas and portraying Israel as bastion of apartheid and a perpetrator of crimes against humanity.

For example, Barghouti, who is a leader in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, the economic warfare campaign against Israel, often uses “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” rhetoric in describing Israel.

Barghouti’s most recent effort to delegitimize Israel was as a prime organizer of the Global March to Jerusalem (GMJ) on March 30, an event also supported by Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and the theocratic totalitarians of Iran.

According to event organizers, the GMJ was a protest march in which Arab and foreign activists were to descend upon Jerusalem in an attempt to “confirm that the policies and practices of the racist Zionist state of Israel against Jerusalem and its people are a crime not only against Palestinians but against all humanity.”

Backed by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomenei, the GMJ’s advisory body consisted of a rogue’s gallery of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli zealots, including radical professors Noam Chomsky and Cornel West, Code Pink head Medea Benjamin, and Black liberation theologist and Obama pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Organizational backers of the GMJ also included another OTI friend, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a radical anti-Israel organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, which has openly admitted to working with Hamas; the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP); Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ); Fatah; the PLO; and the Palestinian Authority.

Barghouti himself highlighted the GMJ’s central mission to cast Israel as a swamp of apartheid when prior to the march, he told Iran’s semi-official news agency, Fars, “We know that Israel is capable of terrible violence …Today in Jerusalem you see the Israeli system of segregation, apartheid and ethnic cleansing in the sharpest possible way.”

It is hard, then, to get anyone interested in Palestinians victimizing Palestinians—suggesting that the seeming preoccupation with Israeli-ruled territories has something to do with the great value many people find in the Jew-as-victimizer prototype. Similarly, once the United States—supposedly the oppressor—had left Southeast Asia in the early 1970s, it was hard to get any but a few of the opponents of that presence interested in the ensuing horrendous victimization of Vietnamese and Cambodians by other Vietnamese and Cambodians.

Last week, though, an Israeli outfit called the Jerusalem Institute of Justice (JIJ) tried to buck the trend. It presented to the European Parliament a report on “The Status of Human Rights on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.” The reports notes that “a surprising silence prevails regarding the violation of human rights by the Palestinian government authorities in the Territories,” and that, even though these are by now widely documented, “the EU continues to push for full and immediate statehood for the [Palestinian Authority].”

And while the JIJ focuses mainly on Europe, it could, naturally, also have said similar things regarding the Obama administration’s preoccupation with getting statehood for the Palestinians—fast; which seems to have waned only recently in an election year.

It could have been worse for the Israelis, except their missile defense system, known as “Iron Dome,” intercepted 90% of the rockets that were targeted. Israeli-designed and built in Israel by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Iron Dome promises to be a “game changer” according to some analysts, once it is fully deployed across the southern border.

Late Sunday, it was reported that Israel had informed Egypt that it would halt air strikes at midnight. Hamas has also agreed to a cease fire, although the PRC has not indicated its agreement to halt the barrage. It hardly matters. Although the barrage was carried out by the Popular Resistance Committees and another terror group, the Palestinian branch of Islamic Jihad, the Israelis believe that Hamas enables the attacks, or at best, refuses to prevent them.

Iron Dome has an unconventional history. It took only three years from design to deployment — a rarity among complex weapons systems. The tracking system was developed by Elta, an Israeli defense company while the computer software was created by the Israeli firm Prest Systems. The interceptor rocket was built by Rafael.

It is a marvel of technology and can actually determine if a rocket is a threat to a population center, or whether it will land harmlessly in an open field. CNN describes the system:

First deployed in April 2011, the Iron Dome system targets incoming rockets it identifies as possible threats to city centers and fires an interceptor missile to destroy them in mid-air. Each battery is equipped with an interception management center to calculate the expected location of impact, and to prioritize targets according to pre-defined targets. The battery also has firing-control radar used to identify targets, and a portable missile launcher.

This was the first serious battlefield test of Iron Dome and it passed with flying colors. The Jerusalem Post reports that Iron Dome intercepted a total of 27 rockets for a 90% success rate. It is currently deployed around three of the larger cities in the south: Ashdod, Ashkelon, Beersheba. The system is entirely mobile and it is expected that once all batteries are deployed, Israel will potentially be able to intercept any missile fired from Gaza.

“The most important question is how would the Iron Dome affect the decisions of Hamas leaders and their Iranian supporters,” said Dore Gold, Israeli Ambassador to the United States. “While Hamas rockets are aimed primarily to target civilians and terrorize the Israeli home front, a secondary and just important aim is to hit strategic sites in the future,” he added. Gold also pointed out that by eliminating the terrorists’ ability to hit strategic targets, it will force them to re-think what kinds of rockets they will have to purchase in the future.

A controversial DHFC ad appeared last week in the campus newspapers of Florida State University and the University of Arizona, and the Freedom Center has plans to place it in at least one hundred more. Entitled “Where Are They Now?,” it consists simply of a long list of nearly twenty former leaders and members of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) who have graduated to terrorist entities such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Among them are such standouts of Islamic terrorism as “bin Laden 2.0” Anwar al-Awlaki (former MSA President at Colorado State University); American al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn (member of the MSA at the University of Southern California); the infamous Underwear Bomber (former head of the Muslim Association at the University College London); convicted terrorist supporter Abdul Rahman Alamoudi (former MSA National President); Ramy Zamzam, convicted of attempting to join the Taliban and kill U.S. troops (former president of Washington D.C.’s council of Muslim associations); Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas associate Jamal Barzini (co-founder of the MSA); Abu Mansoor al-Amriki (MSA President of the University of South Alabama), spokesman for al-Qaeda in Somalia; and more. The list speaks for itself as ample evidence that the MSA has less to do with serving student needs than recruiting for violent jihad.

A shorter version of that ad recently stirred up controversy on the campus of Ohio State University, where it was condemned as hate speech by a Muslim student who nevertheless could not contradict the factuality of the ad’s content, and who ironically has her own connections to Muslim Brotherhood entities CAIR and Hamas. She lashed out at The Lantern, the student paper that published the ad, but a faculty adviser for The Lantern said the newspaper “can reject advertising that denigrates individuals, groups or organizations based on such things as race, nationality, ethnicity and religion.”

“In this,” he said, “the adviser and co-chair of the publications committee agreed that the ad did not violate the policy.”

The Lantern certainly gave the DHFC a fairer shake than it will have a chance to get at many universities, if MediaMate has its way. MediaMate is a company that manages national advertising for its nearly one hundred client universities like Brown, Colgate, UC San Diego, Boston University, Swarthmore, Temple, and Indiana University. On their website they proudly announce that, “When it comes to college advertising, we are the college.”

Join the Jamie Glazov Show on Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm EST) on Blog Talk Radio. The focus will be on how CAIR is tying the hands of the FBI and gagging the media.This week’s guests are:

Eric Allen Bell, a regular blogger for the “Daily Kos” — where he was recently banned for the crime of writing three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming “Loonwatch.com” as a “terrorist spin control network.” He is currently producing a documentary entitled “Not Welcome” that is about the backlash against construction of a 53,000 square foot mega mosque in America’s Bible Belt.

and

Dr. Tim Furnish, an author and Muslim world analyst who holds a PhD in Islamic history from Ohio State and who learned Arabic in the US Army; his areas of expertise are Islamic eschatology, Mahdism, sects and transnational movements. He has lectured at Joint Special Operations University, the Army War College, Ben Gurion University and the annual Mahdism Conference in Iran.

To listen to the program, click here.

Or go to: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/02/22/the-jamie-glazov-show

Phone in #: (347) 857-1380

See you Tuesday night!

Ismail Haniyeh, the putative prime minister of Hamas, headquartered in Gaza, has just visited Iran. That visit highlighted a growing division within Hamas between Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas politburo. Until very recently headquartered in Damascus, Mashaal has broken with Iran and relocated to the Gulf State of Qatar.

On February 12, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khameini, expressing support for his guest, publicly declared that the Palestinian issue was an “Islamic cause.”

The “Palestinian issue”?  This sounds rather as if Iran were promoting a Palestinian state. (This surface impression would coincide with the notion that the Arab/Islamic world would be less bellicose if only Israel would agree to a “two state solution.”)  But it is far from the reality, and the Ayatollah’s words provide an excellent opportunity for setting the record straight.

Just as the Ayatollah is Islamist (perhaps heading the Islamist state “par excellence,” as it were), so is Hamas Islamist—a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Islamist ideology is not nationalist, but, rather, is dedicated to the concept of the ummah —the entire Muslim world seen as a unity. As Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein said, shortly after the overthrow of the Shah and his return to Iran from exile, “I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke. We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.”

According to this view, any country, as a sovereign national entity, can legitimately be sacrificed in service to the larger goal of ensuring that “Islam emerges triumphant…”  That triumphalism alludes to rule of shari’a (Islamic law).  The ultimate to be aspired to in this regard is the caliphate, an institution of imperial Islamic rule that strives for global hegemony.

And what of the “Palestinian issue”?  It’s all about the destruction of Israel and the banishment of Jews from the land.

This approach was very explicitly outlined by the Muslim Brotherhood in The Project, part of its charter adopted in 1982 (and described in detail on May 11, 2006 in Front Page Magazine).

Among the techniques it recommended was this:

• Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination…

A similar approach is reflected in the 1988 covenant of Hamas, the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” which states:

• The Movement’s program is Islam…

• The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine…

• The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders…

• The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [sacred trust] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day.

• Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem…

No mention of a Palestinian state here and no emphasis on a distinct “Palestinian Arab people.”  No commitment to Palestinian national sovereignty as a value unto itself.   When leaders of Hamas speak of “resistance,” they intend only to banish Jews from a part of the land that ultimately belongs to the ummah.

A crowd of would-be revolutionaries gathered last month at Revolution Books in Berkeley to hear Stephen Zunes—chair of the program in Middle Eastern studies and professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco—speak on a panel with the improbable title, “U.S.-Israeli Assault on Iran Escalates: The Danger of War Grows.” The title originated with an article by co-panelist Larry Everest, author and correspondent for Revolution, the newspaper for the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, an organization whose cult of personality revolves around well-known Stalinist Bob Avakian. Fittingly, event posters on the walls sported slogans such as “Re-visioning Socialism” and “Another World is Possible,” and the shelves were filled with books by Avakian and other communists.

Revolution Books inhabits a choice retail location just blocks from the University of California, Berkeley campus, and in contrast with other events featuring left-wing academics whose talks are assigned to students, the audience in this instance was largely middle-aged to elderly. Spanish speakers provided simultaneous translations in the rear seats, producing a continuous background hum, while a very casually dressed woman entered, radio to her ear, listening to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address.

All who entered were handed a copy of Revolution along with a flier for International A.N.S.W.E.R.’s then-forthcoming “national day of action” in San Francisco, which trumpeted the do-nothing rallying cry, “No War on Iran, No Sanctions, No Interventions, No Assassinations!” Like the rally to come, the atmosphere at Revolution Books was fiercely anti-American, anti-Israel, and apologetic towards, even supportive of, the Iranian regime.

In a nod to the setting, Zunes proclaimed at the outset, “I’m not a communist,” but his repetitive references to “imperialists” demonstrated his familiarity with leftist jargon. He elaborated: “A lot of what I’m going to say overlaps, but I am coming from a slightly different angle.”

Affirming the contention of the preceding speaker, Larry Everest, that the Iranian regime had allegedly given up pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003 according to a 2007—and later discredited—National Intelligence Estimate, Zunes added, “No one who is intellectually honest could disagree with your analysis.” Was International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director-General Yukiya Amano intellectually dishonest when he stated last month that the IAEA, “has credible information that Iran is engaged in activities relevant to the development of nuclear explosives”?

Zunes reiterated a position he took in a 2009 article—on the heels of Iran’s stolen election—titled, “Why U.S. Neocons Want Ahmadinejad to Win”:

What’s important is that Neocons and the imperialists in this country want the green revolution crushed. They need each other to justify the kinds of policies the U.S. imperialists want.

This logic, such as it is, concludes that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provides a handy excuse for so-called warmongers in the U.S. to block the Obama administration’s diplomatic overtures to Iran. Such a conspiracy theory ignores the fact that Neoconservatives and others on the right were strong critics of the Obama administration’s refusal to offer moral support to the green revolution at its outset.

Zunes insisted that U.S. intervention only inspires the Iranian people to side with their government:

Everyone emphasizes the Islamic characteristics of Iran, but what’s really kept the regime in power is nationalism. The Iranians are the most nationalistic people in the entire world . . . it’s something the regime can capitalize on when it hears these threats [of sanctions]. What we don’t hear in the media is that the opposition supports the government in its conflict with the U.S. They oppose U.S. intervention.

Yet dissident voices within Iran continue to express disgust with the regime and a lack of animosity towards the U.S.  For instance, a young Iranian woman who corresponds regularly with American journalist Michael Yon recently sent him the following:

To make the long story short, people in Iran, not just youth, hate the government and want to move out of the country as soon as they can. . . . The Iranians do not hate you nor do they hate ur [sic] government. This is all the media. . . . No one is against you here except for those on the government’s side.

Iranian exiles who were tortured in Iran’s Evin Prison provided letters and live testimony at the UN Watch-organized event, “We Have A Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution,” held in September, 2011 to coincide with the United Nations 66^th Session of the General Assembly. To no avail, the organizers begged the international community to intervene.

On Monday, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas let the cat out of the bag again. In the presence of Qatar’s rabidly anti-Israel Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa, and alongside Hamas’s exiled Politburo chief, Khaled Meshal, Abbas’s Fatah party signed a reconciliation agreement with Hamas, paving the way for the formation of a Palestinian unity government. With the stroke of a pen, Abbas’s prior assertion that “there are no more differences between [Fatah and Hamas]” was sanctified. Abbas officially considers as a primary Palestinian aim the annihilation of Israel.

And to alleviate all doubt (or misplaced hope), when asked the next day whether the reconciliation agreement would “moderate” Hamas, Political Bureau member Izzat al-Rishq declared: “The Palestinian people maintain their right to all forms of resistance, and we are committed to armed resistance…to confront the…Zionist enemy’s plans.” Abbas is now openly complicit in this murderous endeavor.

As for the so-called “international community,” the response was relatively muted.

A spokesman at the US mission in Tel Aviv said the Obama administration would not articulate a “formal position on a speculative event,” but rather would “wait to see what happens.”

If only Israel’s “speculative” approval of the construction of a few hundred houses in its capital city drew such remarks.

Surprisingly, the EU also refrained from assuming an official stance. However, given the EU’s reaction in November following a previous round of reconciliation talks—“[the EU has] consistently called for reconciliation under Abbas’ authority”—no doubt the Europeans still consider Hamas’s inclusion in Palestinian politics as “an opportunity rather than a threat,” as well as, incredibly, and without justification, “essential for securing a lasting peace with Israel.”

Less surprising was UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s message to Abbas: Fatah’s reconciliation with a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction should not be viewed as contradictory or mutually exclusive from negotiating with the Jewish state. In a twisted sense, Ki-moon is correct. Abbas’s partnership with genocidal Hamas will in no manner affect his policy of rejecting direct negotiations with Israel.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu left little to the imagination: “Hamas is a terrorist organization that strives to destroy Israel, and which is supported by Iran. I have said many times in the past that the Palestinian Authority must choose between an alliance with Hamas and peace with Israel. Hamas and peace do not go together.… If Abu Mazen [Abbas] implements what has been signed, he will have chosen to abandon the way of peace[.]”

If you were to suggest in a public forum that just possibly Israel’s failure to reach a peace agreement with a terrorist organization run by kleptomaniacs and homicidal maniacs, which still continues to applaud the murder of Israeli children, might possibly be due to the terrorists and not because of Israel, then according to the consensus of the left, you are an Israel Firster.

The paradigm of the Israel Firster only works if you assume that the America First position is to support Islamic terrorists. Even if we were to dismiss the threat of Islamic terrorism to the United States then a position sympathetic to the territorial claims of Islamic terrorists in Israel would still not be the America First position. It would be the Muslims First position.

The left, which deploys names like Israel Firsters, is certainly not calling for neutrality in the conflict, rather it would like us to side with the Muslim Brotherhood and the assorted Islamic terrorists scattered throughout the region. Arguably the United States has been doing this for some time already.

Obama stuck his finger in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s chest, but bowed to the Saudi King. When he visited Turkey, he made no mention of the Turkish settlements in occupied Cyprus, but when Biden visited Israel, he threw a fit over a partial approval for a few houses in Jerusalem. The United States doesn’t fund many terrorist groups, but the bulk of the funding that it allots to terrorists goes to terrorists operating in Israel and killing Israelis.

Last week the State Department put out a list of designated terrorist organization. That list includes the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. The Brigade has not only committed numerous atrocities against Israelis, it at one point threatened to launch terrorist attacks against America. The Brigade is the military arm of the Fatah group which controls the Palestinian Authority. The Authority is the beneficiary of an average of 600 million dollars a year in direct assistance, and indirectly through the UNRWA which has already received an initial 55 million dollars from the United States in 2012.

Terrorists who murder Israelis don’t just indirectly benefit from American aid; that money is going to pay the salaries of convicted terrorists in Israeli prisons. Some of those terrorists received training and weapons from the United States. I would like to be able to say that this sort of thing is one of the innovations of the Hussein administration, but it’s an an artifact of two previous administrations.

This is usually how countries treat other countries that they are at war with. In this case it is an artifact, not of an Israel Firster policy, but of a Muslim Firster policy. There is no interpretation of Israel Firster that accommodates the United States arming and funding terrorists. But there is an extensive global policy of rewarding and appeasing Muslims.

Opponents of Israel often complain that they are being “silenced” in some intangible ways, but the United States government has certainly never criminalized criticism of Israel. However, it continues to conduct discussions with the OIC, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, on ways to suppress and censor criticism of Islam. Nor has the Secretary of State suggested that critics of Israel should be subject to “peer pressure and shaming,” which she has for critics of Islam.

American soldiers have been dying incessantly to protect Muslims for decades now. They died in Somalia to protect aid to Somali Muslims. They died in the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait and protect the Muslim holy sites of Mecca and Medina from Saddam Hussein. They died over Yugoslavia to build a state for the Muslim terrorists of the KLA. Thousands of American soldiers have died to protect Muslims from other Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the last year alone, the United States has helped overthrow secular governments to make way for Muslim ones. When the Libyan ruler refused to resign, Obama sent in NATO jets to bomb his forces into submission so that the Al Qaeda- and Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group could take power.

While the United States abandoned Iranian students protesting against an Islamist regime, it overthrew governments in Egypt and Tunisia to make way for Islamist takeovers. The Saudis got to use tanks in Bahrain, but Gaddafi was hunted down and killed for a genocide that never happened.

What do you call all that but a Muslim Firster foreign policy?

In “The Audacity of Hope,” a book title taken from a sermon of his vilely anti-Semitic former black Muslim mentor, Obama wrote, “I will stand with the Muslims.” And he has done it.

Obama has stood with the Muslims in Cote d’Ivorie, where armed force was used to illegally seat a Muslim ruler against the ruling of the country’s supreme court. He has stood with the Muslims in Kenya, where his cousin and his Muslim backers forcibly wrote Sharia Law into the Constitution. He has stood with the genocidal Muslims in Indonesia, not the Christian Papuans whose land is occupied and whose representatives are persecuted.

Most of FrontPage Magazine’s readers already know that U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta yelled at the wrong guy in early December, 2011, when he scolded Netanyahu with his misplaced adjuration: “just get to the damn table.”  But it will still be useful to take a quick look at the many times that Israeli leaders have invited Arab leaders to that “damn table” and have been rebuffed, in word and in deed, by Arab leaders.

For a summary of the 31 times since 1937 that Arab leaders have not only refused Israeli offers of peace, but have responded with war, terrorist attacks, and threats of genocide and annihilation, see two earlier articles by the present writer, here and here.

Over the past few years, there has emerged a new and different pattern that, while obvious and transparent, has not made much of an impression on Secretary Panetta or other of the USA’s or EU’s spokespersons.

This new pattern is:  PA President Mahmoud Abbas creates pre-conditions for negotiations that he knows Israel cannot accept.  Then he refuses to join in negotiations that are open-ended and without pre-conditions.  Then he blames Israel for its refusal to agree to his unacceptable pre-conditions.  Then Western leaders and journalists blame Israel for the “log jam” in negotiations.

In June 2009¹, shortly after he formed his coalition government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called publicly for direct negotiations toward a two-state solution.  A PA spokesperson, speaking on behalf of President Abbas, declared the PA’s refusal to respond to Netanyahu’s invitation.

In November, 2009, Israel implemented its 10-month “settlement” construction freeze as a compromise response to US President Obama’s demands and called upon Abbas to join him “in meaningful peace negotiations…that will finally end the conflict.”  Abbas again rejected Netanyahu’s invitation, first insisting that he would wait until the construction freeze was over before he would consider joining Netanyahu in negotiations; but then, when the 10-month freeze drew to an end, he threatening that he would not meet with Netanyahu unless the Israeli prime minister continue the freeze and extend it to include East Jerusalem, which had been excluded from the original freeze agreement.

In February 2011, Netanyahu again called for a resumption of negotiations, and made some goodwill gestures to enhance the Palestinian economy.  Not only did Abbas rebuff these gestures, but he announced his intention to side-step negotiations with Israel and take his case for Palestinian statehood to the UN despite President Obama’s objections.

In May 2011, Netanyahu again offered to restart negotiations for a two-state solution and promised significant territorial concessions.  Abbas ignored Netanyahu, President Obama, and even the loss of $200 million in American aid; and instead he wrote his infamous op-ed essay in the New York Times in which he promised that even when “Palestine” becomes the 194^th state in the UN, the conflict would not be over. The new state of “Palestine,” once it became the 194^th member of the UN’s family of nations, would pursue political avenues of redress against Israel at the UN, the International Court of Justice and other human rights milieus.

In September 2011, at his speech before the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu renewed his invitation to Abbas.  Abbas refused the offer and instead pressed on with his ultimately unsuccessful attempt at UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

Even Netanyahu’s “economic peace” plan of September 2009, that would have helped return the West Bank to the economic prosperity that it enjoyed during most of the pre-Oslo era from 1967 to 2004, was summarily dismissed by Abbas because it demanded that the PA put a stop to terror attacks emanating from the West Bank.  Abbas rejected it, saying that: “We refuse to be security agents for Israel.”  In other words, the PA prefers to tolerate, and therefore encourage, terror attacks against Israel rather than engage in cooperation with Israel that will economically benefit the Arabs of the West Bank.

The Freedom Center ad is published in full below this article.

Controversy is heating up over a David Horowitz Freedom Center advertisement published in an Ohio State University student newspaper.

Under the headline “Former Leaders of the Muslim Student Association (MSA): Where Are They Now?,” the ad in The Lantern simply lists, without comment, ten MSA co-founders and former presidents connected to terrorist entities such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Not all have criminal convictions, but among them are such terrorist superstars as Anwar al-Awlaki, the budding “bin Laden 2.0” taken out last year in a drone attack, and Abu Mansoor al-Amriki, spokesman for al-Qaeda in Somalia. The ad closes by promoting a new pamphlet by Daniel Greenfield at the Freedom Center, Muslim Hate Groups on Campus, which documents the radical origins and violent objectives of the main Muslim student organizations on our nation’s campuses, such as the MSA and Students for Justice in Palestine, which are sponsors of hate-fests like “Israeli Apartheid Weeks” or “Palestine Awareness Weeks.”

In fact, the Ohio State University branch of the MSA has had connections to terrorists itself, as noted in the 2008 FrontPage piece, “Terror-Funded MSA at Ohio State.” Kindhearts, the sponsor of a 2006 MSA conference, was closed by order of the Department of the Treasury for financing terrorism:

Kindhearts, however, was not the only terror-connected sponsor of the OSU MSA conference. Also supporting the MSA’s conference was its local parent organization, Masjid Omar Ibn El-Khattab, known affectionately in the Central Ohio area as “Masjid Al-Qaeda”. The mosque nearby the OSU campus was home to the largest known Al-Qaeda cell in the US.

After 9/11 the OSU MSA email list regularly published news releases by Islamic terrorist organizations and encouraged readers to buy videos from a terrorist support website. In 2003 the student organization helped host now-convicted Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian. More recently, the OSU MSA jointly sponsored an event featuring notorious Muslim Brotherhood leader Jamal Badawi.

One of the Ohio State students who complained about the DHFC ad is International Studies major Jana al-Akhras, 18. “I am offended not only as a Muslim or as a general-body member of the MSA, but as a member of the OSU community,” she said. “We do not stand for discrimination, hate or intolerance here.” Nor does the Freedom Center – its ad has no hateful, intolerant, or discriminatory content, except perhaps an implied intolerance for terrorist activity. That’s enough for al-Akhras to dismiss it as “hate speech”; she claims that the ad constitutes a blanket statement labeling Muslim students as security threats. “It’s a blatant attempt at reinforcing stereotypes and causing widespread fear of Muslims on campus.” To imply that the MSA is responsible for international terrorism only “breeds hatred,” she insists.

Al-Akhras did not explain how merely identifying the names of ten MSA leaders and their demonstrable connections to terrorism breeds hatred; nor did she address the fact that it is the terrorists themselves and their supporters who are the ones consumed by hatred and “reinforcing stereotypes” about Muslims. She also did not contradict the factuality of the ad’s content; she only offered the excuse that there can be “bad apples” in any organization.

She believes “there’s a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech.” Apparently the facts presented in the DHFC ad cross that line. OSU Undergraduate Student Government President Nick Messenger chimed in, calling the ad “false, bigoted and full of hate speech that doesn’t have a place on campus.” Neither he nor al-Akhras provided any evidence for their accusations; nonetheless, she said that The Lantern “had every right to deny [the ad] as hate speech.”

A controversy has broken out this week that epitomizes how bold the Islamic supremacist forces in the U.S. have become, and how weak and supine those who are charged with protecting the public have become.

The New York Times has run a news story and an indignant unsigned editorial about the showing of The Third Jihad, a relatively tepid anti-jihad film, to New York Police Department personnel. The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) immediately got into the act, compelling New York’s ever ready to accommodate Mayor Michael Bloomberg to apologize and denounce the film, which he almost certainly has not seen. But that wasn’t enough for Hamas-linked CAIR: they’re calling now for the resignation of New York’s Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly.

And that stands to reason, based on the principle that when one’s enemy is down, one should kick him some more. Hamas-linked CAIR sees its chance to end all effective counter-terror measures in New York, and is going for it.

This whole controversy is epitomized by the photo illustration and lead paragraph of the first New York Times story on this issue: “In Police Training, a Dark Film on U.S. Muslims,” which was by Michael Powell and appeared in the January 23 issue. The photo shows the black flag of jihad flying above the White House, with the caption, “An Islamic flag atop the White House in ‘The Third Jihad.’”

Then the lead paragraph says: “Ominous music plays as images appear on the screen: Muslim terrorists shoot Christians in the head, car bombs explode, executed children lie covered by sheets and a doctored photograph shows an Islamic flag flying over the White House.”

Both the Times’ use of the image and its reference to it at the beginning of the story suggest that the producers of The Third Jihad doctored the photo themselves in order to push their cockamamie idea that some Muslims want to “infiltrate and dominate America.” But in reality, Muslims originated this image, as we have reported here several times. Here is a photo of Muslims holding up this photo at a rally in New York in February 2006:

And another:

Yet this whole controversy is predicated on the assumption that The Third Jihad is whipping up hysteria about a non-existent threat. In reality, it covers much the same ground that I cover in my book Stealth Jihad, in which I show that the agenda of infiltration and subversion on the part of the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups is very real.

In “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America,” by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991, Muslim Brotherhood operatives in the U.S. are told that they “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Editor’s note: Below is Sara Dogan’s review of the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s new pamphlet, Muslim Hate Groups On Campus by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Center. To read the pamphlet, click here. To order the pamphlet, click here or buy it for $0.99 on Kindle.

Muslim Hate Groups On Campus by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, exposes the radical origins and violent objectives of the purportedly mainstream Muslim student organizations that have set up shop on our nation’s campuses.

For those who have not set foot on a college campus in recent years, the casual anti-Semitism and atmosphere of intimidation may seem eerily reminiscent of 1930s Germany. Radical Muslim students and their leftist allies string barbed wire around “check­points” where pro-Palestinian activists brandish mock weapons and shout to passing students “Are you Jewish?” and erect “Apartheid Walls” plas­tered with Hamas posters describing Jews as baby-killers, along with  maps showing the Jewish State erased and replaced with “Palestine.” These actions are justified as episodes of agitprop “theater,” but they have a more serious and deadly intent.

The lead sponsors of these events (dubbed “Israeli Apartheid Weeks” or “Palestine Awareness Weeks”) and the chief instigators of the campus attacks on Jews, Greenfield shows, are members of two student organizations linked to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood network, the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). A civil rights lawsuit against the University of Cali­fornia, Berkeley for failing to protect a Jewish stu­dent from a violent attack by an SJP activist notes that “the two groups [MSA and SJP] not only co-sponsor events and cooperate on strategic projects, but they even share the same office and campus fa­cilities.” It further charges that “The more publicly activist SJP may be understood as the militant arm of the outwardly benevolent MSA.”

Last year, it seemed like an Islamist super-bloc was forming in the Middle East. Secular regimes fell and others faced uprisings. Turkey grew closer to Iran and Syria. The Iranian regime produced an End Times documentary depicting the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as the fulfillment of prophecy. Now, pro-Western governments remain unstable but the Islamists are turning their daggers on each other.

The division in the Islamist ranks is most clearly seen in Syria. The Iranian regime has deployed the Revolutionary Guards to help the Bashar Assad regime crush the uprising. Hezbollah and the Shiite-led Iraqi government are sticking by Assad’s side. On the other side are genuine secular democratic forces but also the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Qatar and Turkey. Turkey is demanding that Assad resign and is hosting the Free Syria Army, the rebel forces who are violently trying to overthrow him. The Emir of Qatar has just endorsed sending Arab military forces to Syria to stop the regime’s crackdown.

The Libyan government sent an Islamist militia leader to advise the Free Syria Army. There are reports that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group has even dispatched fighters to Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood is a direct participant in the uprising. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradawi, who is the Muslim Brotherhood’s top theologian and is based in Qatar, branded the Assad regime as “heretical.” Qaradawi even declared that it was permissible for a U.N.-led intervention to take place and says that Assad’s soldiers are religiously obligated to defect to the Free Syria Army. “If you want the welfare of your people and intend to go to paradise after death, please join the Free Army,” he preached.

This puts Hamas in an awkward position. The terrorist group belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is fighting Assad, but Hamas has long enjoyed the generous support of Assad and Iran. Hamas’ political bureau is based in Damascus. Hamas suppressed anti-Assad protests in the Gaza Strip but that was not enough to satisfy Iran, which demanded that pro-Assad rallies be staged.

In recent months, Hamas began moving staff out of Damascus and to Egypt, Gaza, Sudan, Jordan and Qatar, presumably in preparation to break relations with Assad. Iran threatened to end all support for Hamas if it left Syria, so Khaled Mashaal, the chief of the Damascus office, stayed along with a reduced staff. After a long silence, he endorsed Assad in late December, saying he had “supported the Palestinian resistance and the Palestinian people in every possible away.” Mashaal tried to tow a middle line by stating that he still supports democracy and “the rights of the peoples,” insinuating dissatisfaction with the regime’s oppression.

Hamas also reportedly fears Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Journalist Aaron Klein was told by “one of the most senior Hamas officials” that he privately hopes that Israel stops Iran from getting nuclear weapons, even if it means the use of military force. The leadership of Hamas is reportedly even debating not retaliating if Iran is attacked by Israel. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad, however, remains in Iran’s back pocket.

There are indications that the Iranian-Syrian relationship is being tested. In September, Ahmadinejad surprisingly and hypocritically called on the Assad regime to end its crackdown, saying a “military solution is never the right solution.” He pressured the Syrian regime to undergo reforms in order to alleviate the crisis. At the same time, the Iranian regime reached out to a Syrian opposition group called the National Coordination Committee that is dead-set against foreign intervention. The group rejected Iran’s overtures. It appears as if Iran was pressuring Assad to cut a deal with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. In late October, Ahmadinejad tried to convince the Muslim Brotherhood to support Assad in exchange for having its representatives appointed to four high-level positions. Iran was turned down.

[This review was originally posted on LiveLeak.com.]

Jamie Glazov connects the dots between the totalitarian massacres of the 20th century, murder in the name of Islam and the mutual attraction between the radical Left and radical Islamists.

Both the radical and the reactionary hate the present. Intellectuals and celebrities venerated monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, & Ho Chi Minh. The New Left of the 1960s didn’t have a change of heart, just a change of icons from Stalin to third world tyrants. The homicidal and sadistic Che Guevara is still held up as a hero.

After the communist victory and resultant slaughter in Vietnam, few of Hanoi’s western supporters expressed shock or regret. These true believers do not care about the victims who are merely eggs to be broken in order to create the perfect utopian omelet.

The last communist hope in Nicaragua was shattered by Ronald Reagan. After that, the collapse of the Soviet Empire left the Left aimless.

To order United in Hate, click here.

The ideological offspring of the ‘progressives’ that were hoping the West would lose the Cold War became the nihilist leftovers of today.Hatred of the United States is one great attractor. Jihadists share a desire for cathartic violence with radical leftists; that’s why the latter could not conceal their glee in the wake of 9/11.

In the 1930s, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj al-Amin al-Husseini, became a supporter of Hitler, eventually settling in Berlin where he encouraged the annihilation of European
Jews, hoping to become the leader of the Arab world in expectation of an Axis victory.

The Mufti promoted Nazism amongst the Arabs, blending National Socialism with fundamentalist Islam. After the war, he fled to Cairo where he accommodated fleeing Nazis and planned the destruction of Israel. Al-Husseini did not only target Jews but also moderate Arabs and the democratic West in general. Nazism was the spiritual and physical bridge bringing ideological extremism to the Arab world. When the Soviet Union
became the champion of the Arab cause, hatred of Israel started migrating to the Left. Arab leaders like Gamal Abdel Nasser, Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat were all influenced by the Mufti’s ideas.

The Left’s latest idol is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his proxies Hamas and Hezbollah.

I have often wondered with both genuine puzzlement and rage, why the radical Left seems to have vigorously supported every murderous tyranny on the face of the earth, providing it is anti-Western.

It has always been galling and sickening how left wing radicals have had no humanity towards anyone who was a victim of the totalitarian regimes or bloodthirsty terrorist movements that they have supported over the last century. The shameful death cult odyssey has led left wing radicals of the intellectual elite, academics, lawyers, writers, entertainers and others to always identify with the most evil and monstrous regimes and leaders on this planet and to turn a blind eye to the death and destruction they have sowed (while in reality enjoying it).

Watch Jamie Glazov explain the Left’s romance with terror in the CBN video interview below:

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Join the Jamie Glazov Show that aired on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 8-9 pm Pacific (11-12 pm EST) on Blog Talk Radio. This week’s discussion focused on the Freedom Center’s new blockbuster video, Obama – The Anti-Israel President (to watch the video, click here).

This week’s guest was:

David P. Goldman, the author of the new book, How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too).

To listen to the program, click here. Or go to:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/radio-jihad/2012/01/11/the-jamie-glazov-show

See you next Tuesday night!

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle. Click here.