The Democratic National Committee (chaired by Howard Dean) has appointed an Islamist front-man to the credentials committee of their 2008 Convention. Little Green Footballs reports:
Mujahid (a name which means “holy warrior,” of course) and his operation Sound Vision will be familiar to longtime LGF readers, because about a year after the 9/11 attacks we discovered the bulletin board they used to run—a center of support for terrorism, jihad ideology, suicide bombing, and snuff films.
Here’s an article by Abdul Malik Mujahid at soundvision.com, lavishing praise on convicted cop-killer “Imam Jamil Al-Amin”—aka H. Rap Brown: My Memories Of Imam Jamil Al-Amin.
Perhaps it is time for a new global approach to deal with Israel and its occupation.
Perhaps we ought to broaden our multinational and multicultural horizons by transcending the old comprehensive settlements, roadmaps, and Quartet when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, a dispute which originated with the creation of Israel. Why not simply hold an international conference on all of these issues — albeit in a far more global context, outside the Middle East? The ensuing general accords and principles could be applied to Israel and the West Bank, where the number of people involved, the casualties incurred, and the number of refugees affected are far smaller and far more manageable.
Perhaps there could be five U.N. sessions: disputed capitals; the right of return for refugees; land under occupation; the creation of artificial post-World War II states; and the use of inordinate force against suspected Islamic terrorists. Read full article
The credibility of Jihadist sources came into popular doubt recently with Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad's televised denial at NY's Columbia University of the existence of homosexual people in Iran. This should have put the Islamist-revisionist history of the Israel-Palestine conflict into the same category of the Islamist world's Holocaust denial campaign.
But this week, Hamas created a false humanitarian crisis for the global media which it blamed on Israel and painted itself as the victim. And in Washington it was revealed that the firing of an counter-Islamist educator, Major Stephen Coughlin, at the behest of the Arab-Muslim, Defense Department advisor, Mr. Hesham Islam, exposed the extent to which both this Administration employs commercial oil and military industry-bred executives in policy roles, as well as the pro-Islamist/anti-Israel nature of their advisors on Islamic-related matters.
Claudia Rosett of the Center for the Defense of Democracies exposes (in National Review Online) an example of journalist Paul Sperry's allegations in his 2005 book, Infiltration, of the extent to which Washington is trusting the untrustworthy.
..."According to his Pentagon biography, (Egyptian-born and Iraqi-educated) Hesham Islam went on to serve on a number of (US Navy) ships, in largely technical and operational posts, before hooking up with Gordon England and finally arriving at his current job in the Pentagon. So, what qualifies Islam to serve as an adviser to whom Gordon England listens all the time, and whose advice England takes? According to Kevin Wensing, England’s pubic-affairs aide: “Mr. Islam brings 20 years of experience in the U.S. Navy and international relations to his current assignment.”
This includes an M.A. in national-security affairs, awarded in 1992 at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. For this degree, Islam wrote a 139-page thesis about the Middle East, entitled “Roots of Regional Ambition.” In it, he devoted dozens of pages to lambasting Israel, and the influence of American Jews on U.S. politics. He deplored “Israeli activities which have detrimentally affected U.S. objectives but which have continued with impunity.” He argued that U.S. support for Israel “has negatively affected the attainment of U.S. objectives in the Middle East.” He blamed the influence of American Jews on U.S. policy for a host of ills, ranging from Arab “retaliation” against Americans, to jobs lost overseas, to hampering sales of “defensive arms to friendly Arab states.”
Whether Gordon England (or Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for that matter) considers such views a relevant qualification for Islam’s current duties is unclear. But what’s emerging at the Pentagon is a landscape in which Stephen Coughlin’s insistence on crafting doctrine based not on politically correct assumptions, but on facts, is apparently deemed a bridge too far. Meanwhile, from the office of Deputy Secretary England, Hesham Islam continues his bridge building. The question isn’t just whom to believe, but who’s running this show?"
An interesting primer explaining Islamic culturally-sanctioned deception is posted on Jihad Watch.
Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post's deputy managing editor and Center for Security Policy Middle East affairs analyst , speaks in America about participating in evolving the Mid-East's only democracy. Topics she discusses include constitutional law; Hamas' jihad base; US/Israel relations; Netanyahu and Clinton.
The Herzliya Conference, hosted by the Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, has become Israel's center stage for the articulation of national policy by its most prominent leaders.
To watch the 2008 Herzliya Conference live and online click here To browse the conference schedule click here To read transcripts of the speeches click here To view bios of the conference speakers click here (Hat tip: Israel eNews.com)
Regarding the Israel Air Force's Syrian nuclear weapons raid, US Ambassador John Bolton said: "The daring and successful Israeli military strike… has obvious significance for the potential of a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. I think, given the debacle caused by our National Intelligence Estimate, that it's close to zero likelihood that President Bush will authorize use of military force against Iran's program before he leaves office, absent some dramatic new development."
He concluded: "Certainly in Teheran you can bet that they took careful notice of what the Israeli Defence Force did. Penetrating Russian supplied radars very similar to the air defenses that Teheran has; using techniques that could be very useful for a long range strike against Iran; this is the kind of operation that the Iranians needIran may be leading in points but the final whistle is still far ahead. to continue to worry about. Because I think with the collapse of American policy, the Israeli strike against the Syrian / North Korea facility is the harbinger of what may be – absent regime change in Teheran – the last resort… Unless you are prepared to see Iran proceed unmolested toward a nuclear weapons capability, which this NIE has given them free rein to do in my judgment, you are coming very close to a decision point in this country of whether you will use military force to stop Iran."
He believes that North Korea is assisting 2 members of the US' list of State Sponsors of Terrorism in nuclear weapons development, Iran and Syria, which the US State Department wishes to keep hidden to protect the failure of their treaty agreement which removed North Korea from the Terror Sponsors list.
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz hinted Tuesday that the probability of an Israeli military strike against Iran has increased given "the deterioration of efforts to stop Iran diplomatically."
"The diplomatic timetable is running short and thus the next two years are critical for stopping Iran through diplomatic means."
Mofaz, who also served as defense minister as well as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, was quoted in Ha'Aretz newspaper as saying, "Reality is complex but the picture is very clear: Iran may be leading in points but the final whistle is still far ahead… It is clear that the current trend must be reversed; and all the means are justified. This is a historical time… This time, no leader will be able to say 'we didn't know, we didn't understand the importance of this time.' The world must do everything that is necessary in order to assure a future of peace and prosperity for the next generations as well."
How is the US administration's strategy to seek establishment of a Palestinian state damaging to the integrity of the world?
The West's push to reward the Jihadist movement in Gaza and the West Bank with sovereignty is antithetical to the goals of defeating global Jihad, cautions deputy managing-editor of The Jerusalem Post, Ms. Caroline Glick, in this exclusive video interview with DemoCast TV.
The nature of the West's guaranteeing Israel's security against Islamic imperialism is a litmus test for the world to gauge the West's preparedness to defend the world from Jihad, she believes. It's also a litmus test to encourage or discourage support for the cause of the global Jihad.
Ms. Glick questions the 'conventional wisdom' currently guiding the West, i.e, to pressure Israel to surrender legal Jewish communities surrounding holy Jewish lands in the West Bank- in order to establish a hostile state of the global Jihad (dedicated to subjugating non-Muslims through violence and conquest). Palestine evidences its unworthiness, she states, by Hamas's custodianship of Gaza - utilized not wage peace, but to wage a 2-year, missile war against Israeli cities and towns.
Ms. Glick is the Senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and is one of several co-authors of the Center’s latest book, "War Footing." She has been a senior researcher at the IDF’s Operational Theory Research Institute (which as Israel’s Defense establishment’s most prestigious think tank is roughly equivalent to the US’s Rand Corporation). She has also worked as an adjunct lecturer in tactical warfare at the IDF’s Command and Staff College.
In 2003, Glick was named "The Most Prominent Woman in Israel" by the Israeli newspaper, Maariv.
In 2005, Younes Tsouli, then 21 years old, became administrator (Irhabi 007) for the web forum al-Ansat, used by 4,500 extremists to communicate with each other, sharing such practical information as how to make explosives and how to get to Iraq to become a suicide bomber.
Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, the head of the Met's counterterrorism operations, said: “It was the first virtual conspiracy to murder that we have seen.”
The story of how he was brought down and the UK terror cells he led authorities to is documented on this BBC programme.
Western groups and leaders, including the US State Department, supported "Reporters without Borders" in petitioning Middle East governments to free arrested dissenter bloggers, including the Saudi Arabian, Fouad al-Farhan.
On January 1st, The Washington Post published: "Farhan's is the first arrest of a blogger in Saudi Arabia. Two Egyptian bloggers and one Tunisian are currently behind bars, according to Sami ben Gharbia, advocacy director for Global Voices, an international research group focused on the Internet and founded at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Farhan told The Washington Post and others in early December that an Interior Ministry official had warned him that he would be detained because of his online support for a group of men arrested in February and held without charge or trial.
At the time of their arrest, the government accused the Jiddah-based group, made up of a former judge, academics and businessmen, of supporting terrorism. The men's attorney, Bassim Alim, had said they were arrested for their political activism and their plans to form a civil rights group.
Farhan wrote that he was told he would be released if he signed an apology for his activism. "I'm not sure if I'm ready to do that. An apology for what? Apologizing because I said the government lied when they accused those guys of supporting terrorism?"
"One day before President Bush arrived here to meet with King Abdullah, he spoke out against Middle Eastern governments that crush dissent and punish political or religious speech.
“You cannot expect people to believe in the promise of a better future when they are jailed for peacefully petitioning their government,” Mr. Bush said Sunday during a speech in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.
“And you cannot stand up a modern and confident nation when you do not allow people to voice their legitimate criticisms,” he said.
But when Mr. Bush arrived in Saudi Arabia yesterday, he stepped into a kingdom where some crimes, including apostasy from Islam, are punished by beheading, and where expressing one’s views on a blog can land you in prison.
Mr Bush said to Gulf Arab leaders in the UAE in the major speech of his nine-day Middle East trip, "The best way to defeat the extremists in your midst is by opening your societies, and trusting in your people, and giving them a voice in their nation." While Mr Bush continued to tout democracy, he put more emphasis on the need for "justice" and broader societal changes, offered a cautious critique of political repression in the Middle East- reassuring nervous Arab leaders of continuing US support.
But Michael Hirsh in "The Growing Power of Petro-Islam" published in Newsweek, calls the President hypocritical in not publicly advocating in Saudi Arabia for the high-profile, jailed civil-rights journalist, Farhan, despite Mr. Bush's inaugural address proclamation,"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture," while he stumped in Saudi Arabia (pledging his support to sell the monarchy a $20 Billion smart-bomb package) for them to hopefully use to contain Iran's nuclear program, and not against Israel - seeking their support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
"The Saud family's legitimacy is built not on law but on an extremist brand of Islam, Wahhabism, in which Osama bin Laden was schooled, much as Tony Soprano's power is based on violence. (Remember when people used to talk about forcing the Saudis to change their radical Islamist views after 9/11? Didn't happen. Instead we invaded somewhat secular Iraq—at least it was next door to the real problem—and found ourselves preoccupied.) Imagine if Tony S. ran much of the world's oil supply and used the vast profits to fund more Bada-Bing fronts for organized crime all over the world? Don't you think governments would band together to stop it? Well, that's not unlike what's happening today, with Saudi Arabia's financing of anti-Western sentiment—but no one's doing anything about it, starting with George Bush. Simply because it's the Saudi government. Our "friends."
Clearly King Abdullah and other senior members of his government are not unfriendly to Washington. But many other Saudis are. This is what some experts have called petro-Islam. The Saudis have used their vast profits to fund not Bada-Bing clubs but Wahhabist mosques around the world, even in the United States. Wahhabists—or Salafists, as members of the broader movement are called—believe in a strict interpretation of the Qur'an and a pure, self-contained Islamic state. Many also embrace the idea that integration into the West—or American society—is profane. This never represented mainstream Islam.
In fact, the creator of Wahhabism, the 18th-century thinker Mohammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, was notorious among Muslims of his time for being something of an extremist himself. He vandalized shrines, and he was denounced by many Islamic theologians for his "doctrinal mediocrity and illegitimacy," as the scholar Abdelwahab Meddeb notes in "Islam and Its Discontents." The upshot is that Western consumers are paying hundreds of billions of dollars in oil profits to help educate and fund their own potential murderers.
None of this would have happened had it not been for the petro-dollar. The Saudis would have stayed obscure Bedouins and Wahhabism little more than a cult. But because of their oil wealth, the Saudis were able to spread Wahhabism's seed worldwide, making it far more mainstream than it would have been otherwise. As one Egyptian intellectual described it me, "It's as if Jimmy Swaggart had come into hundreds of billions of dollars and taken over most of Christianity."
Saudi Arabia was always the problem, and not just because 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. It is because of the rise of petro-Islam in this troubled land. And as oil climbs in value, and research lags on alternative energy sources, this pathological family concern known as Saudi Arabia only grows. Even now no one is really doing anything about this critical problem.
Bush was right when he said in his second inaugural address, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands." If only he had taken himself seriously on this trip. Perhaps next time he ought to insist on seeing a few dissidents.
Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hasn't missed the White House's complacency against the persecution of political critics.
"WORSE EVEN than the media's intimidation of Zionists is the official harassment suffered by those who insist on speaking out. And as Olmert moves ahead with the leftist establishment's program of expelling Israelis from their communities and transferring them to Palestinian terrorists, that harassment is becoming more and more palpable. {...}
On January 9, three activists stood in front of the Dan Panorama Hotel in the capital where the foreign press accompanying Bush on his visit to Israel was being housed. Jeff Daube, Susie Dym and Yehudit Dassberg were attempting to distribute a report on Fatah's support for and involvement in terrorist attacks against Israel to members of the foreign press. The report, written by veteran researcher Arlene Kushner, contained no policy recommendations. It simply documented Fatah's terrorist activities. For their efforts, they were detained by the police and accused of distributing "seditious materials" and causing a public nuisance.
Beyond its harassment of street protesters and activists, the government is now attempting to silence online protests of its policies. Last week, the ministerial committee on legislation approved a bill that would make Web site owners and editors legally responsible for comments published on their sites. Given the government's arbitrary and biased definition of sedition and incitement, if the law is passed it will effectively force bloggers and Web site operators to block all comments to their Web sites. Yet another avenue of protest will be silenced.
The cumulative impact of these phenomena has been the fifth and perhaps determinative factor enabling Olmert to continue in office. Simply stated, between the media's intimidation and the official harassment of citizens who dare to protest or even disagree with the government's policies, the public has simply lost faith its ability to influence the course of the country. This sense of disenfranchisement has demoralized the public into silence.
For those who wish to help end the tenure of a government pushing a radical, post-Zionist agenda with the support of a mere eight percent of the public, it is important to understand this state of affairs. All ameliorative actions must be geared towards ending the stranglehold of the radical Left on the national debate, and towards defending the civil rights and upholding the reputations of those who protest.
Will all the Western sympathy afforded to Mid-East bloggers' political free-speech also be extended to nationalistic, Israeli bloggers (or blog-commenters) to be jailed for criticizing PM Olmert's "land-for-peace" policies?
The International American school in northern Gaza fell victim to a vicious attack on the building over he weekend. Armed Palestinians set fire to school buses, smashed windows, overturned chairs and tables and damaged classrooms and computers.
Hamas officials said the recent attack, the second in the past 48 hours appeared to be in response to how they view US Pres. Bush visiting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to plan boosting Fatah to regain control of Gaza from Hamas. (Courtesy InfoLive.TV)
"Either you're with us (free society) or you are with the terrorists," said President George W. Bush in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.
While en route to solicit backing from 5 antisemitic Muslim Arab countries, Secy of State Condi Rice told reporters that she had to explain to Pres. Bush why FDR's Washington didn't believe averting the annihilation of Jewry to be in America's best interest.
The inconvenient historical connection she probably withheld from him is that the Muslim Arab world which the Bush administration solicits today are the Nazis' ideological disciples and successors of attaining political power by vilifying and annihilating Jewish people.
German historian and author, Matthias Kuntzel, relates how Jew-annihilation was personally inculcated into Muslim Arab leaders by their Nazi partners during World War II.
In reviewing Kuntzel's book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, Jeffrey Golberg writes in the Canada Free Press
"The German scholar Matthias Küntzel {...} takes anti-Semitism, and in particular its most potent current strain, Muslim anti-Semitism, very seriously indeed. His bracing, even startling, book, “Jihad and Jew-Hatred” (translated by Colin Meade), reminds us that it is perilous to ignore idiotic ideas if these idiotic ideas are broadly, and fervently, believed. And across the Muslim world, the very worst ideas about Jews - intricate, outlandish conspiracy theories about their malevolent and absolute power over world affairs - have become scandalously ubiquitous. Hezbollah and Hamas, to name two prominent examples, understand the world largely through the prism of Jewish power. Hezbollah officials employ language that shamelessly echoes Nazi propaganda, describing Jews as parasites and tumors and prescribing the murder of Jews as a kind of chemotherapy."
This news report from Bayerischer Rundfunk explains in detail the cooperation between the Nazis and the Muslim Arab leaders during WWII. It goes on to explain how high ranking heads of the SS fled to the Arab world and carried on their activities under the protection of leaders such as President Nasser and how modern Islam has adopted a Nazi style ideology of hate and conspiracy against the Jews.
(Courtesy Cecil123).
In his documentary film Martial Law, Bush administration critic Alex Jones interviews John Buchanan, who was instrumental in uncovering the documents tying grandfather Prescott Bush to the financing of the Third Reich.
Will G.W. Bush be true to his cause and torpedo the Nazi-successors from their quest to global domination through Jew-annihilating - or will he benefit war-profiteers (like his grand-daddy) by selling those Wahabis a $20 Billion smart weapons package to finish Hitler's goal?
In a rare self-exposure, CNN was criticized on air by editor of the Jerusalem Report, David Horovitz, who called CNN and the foreign press to task in distorting reporting of Israel vs Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization/Palestinian Authority.
According to Daniel Pipes in the Jerusalem Post, 2 recent polls indicate that given the opportunity, both Israeli Arabs and Palestinians living under the PLO/PA overwhelmingly (82%) prefer to liveunder Jewish, not Palestinian, rule.
As the title of a Globe and Mail news item puts it, "Some Palestinians prefer life in Israel: In East Jerusalem, residents say they would fight a handover to Abbas regime."
The article offers the example of Nabil Gheit, who, with two stints in Israeli prisons and posters of "the martyr Saddam Hussein" over the cash register in his store, would be expected to cheer the prospect of parts of eastern Jerusalem coming under PA control.
Not so. As mukhtar of Ras Khamis, near Shuafat, Gheit dreads the PA and says he and others would fight a handover. "If there was a referendum here, no one would vote to join the Palestinian Authority...There would be another intifada to defend ourselves from the PA."
Two polls released last week, from Keevoon Research, Strategy & Communications and the Arabic-language newspaper As-Sennara, survey representative samples of adult Israeli Arabs on the issue of joining the PA, and they corroborate what Gheit says. Asked, "Would you prefer to be a citizen of Israel or of a new Palestinian state?" 62 percent want to remain Israeli citizens and 14 percent want to join a future Palestinian state. Asked, "Do you support transferring the Triangle [an Arab-dominated area in northern Israel] to the Palestinian Authority?" 78 percent oppose the idea and 18 percent support it.
IGNORING THE don't-knows/refused, the ratios of respondents are nearly identical preferring to stay within Israel - 82 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Gheit exaggerates that "no one" wants to live in the PA, but not by much. Thousands of Palestinian residents in Jerusalem who, fearful of the PA, have applied for Israeli citizenship since Olmert's statement further corroborate his point.
Why such affection for the state that Palestinians famously revile in the media, in scholarship, classrooms, mosques, and international bodies, that they terrorize on a daily basis? Best to let them explain their motivations in direct quotations.
Financial considerations: "I don't want to have any part in the PA. I want the health insurance, the schools, all the things we get by living here," says Ranya Mohammed. "I'll go and live in Israel before I'll stay here and live under the PA, even if it means taking an Israeli passport. I have seen their suffering in the PA. We have a lot of privileges I'm not ready to give up."
Law and order: Gazans, note Israeli-Arab journalists Faiz Abbas and Muhammad Awwad, now "miss the Israelis, since Israel is more merciful than [the Palestinian gunmen] who do not even know why they are fighting and killing one another. It's like organized crime."
Raising children: "I want to live in peace and to raise my children in an orderly school," says Jamil Sanduqa. "I don't want to raise my child on throwing stones, or on Hamas."
A more predictable future: "I want to keep living here with my wife and child without having to worry about our future. That's why I want Israeli citizenship. I don't know what the future holds," says Samar Qassam, 33.
Others raise concerns about corruption, human rights, and even self-esteem ("When the Jews talk about swapping me, it's as though they are denying my right to be a person"). These earnest views do not repudiate the vicious anti-Zionism that reigns in the Middle East, but they reveal that four-fifths of those Palestinians who know Israel at first-hand understand the attractions of a decent life in a decent country, a fact with important and positive implications.
With Arabs representing 1 out of every 5 Israeli citizens, where do the press get the notion that 'Palestinians' seek to be liberated from Israel's governance?
The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. "Abu Ammar,” (Nom de guerre for Yasser Arafat) was built into a Palestinian leader by the KGB in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War.
In that war, Israel humiliated two of the Soviet Union’s most important allies in the Arab world of that time, Egypt and Syria, and the Kremlin thought that Arafat could help repair the Soviet prestige. Arafat had begun his political career as leader of the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah, whose fedayeen were being secretly trained in the Soviet Union. In 1969, the KGB managed to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO executive committee. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a Soviet puppet, publicly proposed the appointment.
Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB. Arafat claimed to have coined the word “imperial-Zionism,” but in fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier, combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new Marxist anti-Americanism.
FP: Why has the American and Israeli leadership been deceived so long about Arafat’s criminal and terrorist activities?
Pacepa: Because Arafat is a master of deceit—and I unfortunately contributed to that. In March 1978, for instance, I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev believed that newly elected US president Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait. Therefore, he told the Romanian dictator that conditions were ripe for introducing Arafat into the White House. Moscow gave Ceausescu the job because by 1978 my boss had become Washington’s most favored tyrant. “The only thing people in the West care about is our leaders,” the KGB chairman said, when he enrolled me in the effort of making Arafat popular in Washington. “The more they come to love them, the better they will like us.”
“But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, after Ceausescu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. “We were born as a revolution, and we should remain an unfettered revolution.” Arafat expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline to become a formal state. That statehood was only something for a future generation. That all governments, even Communist ones, were limited by laws and international agreements, and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel.
My former boss was able to persuade Arafat into tricking President Carter only by resorting to dialectical materialism, for both were fanatical Stalinists who knew their Marxism by heart. Ceausescu sympathetically agreed that “a war of terror is your only realistic weapon,” but he also told his guest that, if he would transform the PLO into a government-in-exile and would pretend to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with money and glory. “But you have to keep on pretending, over and over,” my boss emphasized.
Ceausescu pointed out that political influence, like dialectical materialism, was built upon the same basic tenet that quantitative accumulation generates qualitative transformation. Both work like cocaine, let’s say. If you sniff it once or twice, it may not change your life. If you use it day after day, though, it will make you into an addict, a different man. That’s the qualitative transformation. And in the shadow of your government-in-exile you can keep as many terrorist groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name.
In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he convinced President Jimmy Carter that he could persuade Arafat to transform his PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile, if the United States would establish official relations with him. Thereupon, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader” who had “taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community.”
Three months later I was granted political asylum by the United States, and Romania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. A quarter of a century later, however, Arafat remains in place as the PLO chairman and seems to still be on track with the Kremlin’s game of deception. In 1994, Arafat was granted the Nobel Peace Prize because he agreed to transform his terrorist organization into a kind of government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority) and pretended, over and over, that he would abolish the articles in the 1964 PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of the state of Israel and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism.
At the end of the 1998-99 Palestinian school year, however, all one hundred and fifty new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority described Israel as the “Zionist enemy” and equated Zionism with Nazism. Two years after the Oslo Accords were signed, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists rose by 73% compared to the two year period preceding the agreement.
The Democratic National Committee (chaired by Howard Dean) has appointed an Islamist front-man to the credentials committee of their 2008 Convention. Little Green Footballs reports: 
