CAIR – The Truth Exposed by Rep. Sue Myrick and Chris Gaubatz

Recently, two important events have shown us the true nature of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, despite that organization’s efforts to protect its secret workings.

First, Rep. Sue Myrick, together with others, held a press conference, in which they courageously and publicly called for a federal investigation of CAIR, which was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case of the United States v. Holy Land Foundation et al. That case provided clear evidence of relationships between CAIR and its founders and the Palestinian Committee, a Hamas related group.

At the press conference, an internal CAIR memo was made public. The memo set forth one of CAIR’s goals: to place its own interns into the offices of strategically selected members of Congress. Specifically targeted were members of the Homeland Security, Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

So here we have a Hamas-related group trying to infiltrate Congress. That threat to our national security certainly warrants an investigation. Weren’t these the same people who claimed the “Israel lobby” has too much influence?

We have long known that the founders of CAIR, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, are former officials of the Islamic Association of Palestine, which has been described by Oliver Revell, a former FBI counterterrorism chief, as "a front organization for Hamas." The FBI has concluded that CAIR is Hamas affiliated and has suspended all formal contacts with CAIR.

But now, thanks to Chris Gaubatz, we know even more. Chris worked as a CAIR intern for six months and has gathered, and now exposed, a plethora of information on the inner workings of CAIR. His father, P. David Gaubetz, and Paul Sperry have just released a book, Muslim Mafia; Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America (WND Books).

The book exposes numerous deceptions put forth by CAIR. Despite its claims to be a purely American organization which raises funds domestically, CAIR raises a great deal of its funds from donors outside the country. Those funding sources include the ruler of Dubai ($978,000 in 2002), and over $600,000 from Saudi princes. “Gifts” such as these form a large bulk of CAIR’s funding. In 2002, less than three percent of its income came from membership dues. So much for CAIR’s claims of being “independent.”

Other members of Congress, such as Senators Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer, have also had the courage to come forward to speak out against CAIR. Thanks to them, and people like Chris Gaubatz, the facts about CAIR’s radical origins and agenda are coming to light. Now that we know the truth, there is no excuse for dropping the ball. Let's get on with a federal investigation.

The Human Rights Commission Goldstone Resolution: Hypocrisy With Devastating Effects

Today, the oxymoronically named UN Human Rights Commission voted 25-6 in favor of a resolution endorsing the Goldstone report, which accused Israel of committing war crimes in its military action against Hamas in Gaza. No analysis of this vote can be deemed comprehenseive without considering three fundamental factors: the nature of the report, the hypocrisy of the vote, and the decision's likely devastating impact.

Factor One, The Nature of the Report: The report itself is so fundamentally flawed that Richard Goldstone himself is now backing away from it. In a recent interview with the Forward, he acknowledged that the actions of his commission did not even rise to the level of an investigation, merely a "fact-finding mission." Further, he stated that it contained no actual evidence of wrongdoing by Israel, and that, "if this were a court of law, there would have been nothing proven."

For a detailed analysis of the 575 page report, including case studies of the its content, see Jonathan Halevi's article here: http://jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3086&TTL=Blocking_the_Truth_of_the_Gaza_War

In that article, Halevi points out that Goldstone's commission did not address certain activities which Hamas allegedly engaged in, such as:
Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings;
Firing mortar shells into Palestinian neighborhoods when IDF forces were operating in or near the area;
Firing anti-tank missiles, rifles, and machine guns at Palestinian buildings in Gaza suspected of having been entered by IDF forces despite the presence of Palestinian civilians in the area;
Seizing private homes from which to ambush IDF forces;
Booby-trapping houses before and during the war and detonating the bombs;
Planting various types of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle IEDs near houses and detonating them;
Sniping and firing heavy machine guns at IDF forces within Palestinian residential areas.

Factor Two, the Hypocrisy of the Vote: Let's take a look at the list of those who voted in favor of the resolution. Many of those nations are apparently beset by memory problems. For example, there is Russia, which must have forgotten about its behavior when it invaded Georgia last year, and its tactics in Chechnya before that. Another is China, which has lost its recollection of the deaths of hundreds of people in conflicts with its own Uighar Muslims just a few months ago, it's oppression of Tibetans since the 1950's and its brutal repression of all dissent since 1949. Jordan must have voted Yes because Black September, that month back in 1970 when its own forces murdered thousands of Palestinians, has slipped from its mind. Others who were in favor of the resolution include such human rights luminaries as Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Egypt.

The Goldstone Report, with all its flaws, concluded that Hamas also committed war crimes. Why did the Human Rights Commission resolution only apply to Israel?

Factor Three, the Devastating Effects: The primary upshot of this vote is to reward the kind of tactics employed by Hamas and to punish the defense against them. In the middle east, the peace process between Israel and her neighbors has been chilled, if not frozen. The resolution creates a colossal disincentive for Israel to take risks for peace, not only with Hamas, who will not recognize Israel anyway, but with the Palestinian Authority, which, after all, pushed for today's vote. Of course, the effects go beyond the region. While the United States and its NATO allies will likely be considering constricting their actions in Afghanistan to avoid war crimes charges, the real criminal groups, like the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and their ilk around the world will feel a greater sense of freedom, protected as they now are by the United Nations.

In the final analysis, today's resolution is an act of a group of nations punishing one of its members for defending itself, and protecting terrorist acts committed by non-national criminal entities.

Israel and Turkey - a Blip or The Shape of Things to Come?

This week, Turkey excluded Israel from participating in long-planned NATO joint military exercises. This was unusual and unexpected, especially considering that Israel and Turkey have had strong economic and military relations for years. So, the question arises: Is this a blip on the screen because the Turkish government is expressing anger at what it considers Israel's excessive use of force in Gaza? Or was Gaza just the excuse that Turkey's ruling Islamic party has long been looking for in order to permanently distance itself from Israel?

Two indicators point in the latter direction, despite Turkey's attempts to downplay the importance of the incident. First, Turkey has invited Syria to take part in the exercises in Israel's stead. A joint military maneuver with Syria can hardly be considered consistent with a continued strategic relationship with Israel.

Secondly, the Israeli foreign ministry has just called the acting Turkish ambassador on the carpet because a television drama shown on a Turkish state-sponsored station depicts an actor posing as an Israeli soldier deliberately shooting a young Palestinian girl at short range and lining up other Palestinians for a firing squad. Israeli foreign minister Lieberman correctly describes this as "the most serious level of incitement." This also does not give Israelis cause for optimism about the long term relationship.

If Turkey is so adamant about wrecking its relationship with Israel, why then does it not simply come out and say so? Perhaps because being too open about such a policy would strain relations with the west, and, specifically, would jeopardize Turkey's already shaky chances for European Union membership, which it has sought for some time.

Before the Turkish government goes too far down this road, it should ask itself how much it has to gain by doing so, and how much it will lose.