Doc's Talk: CAIR's Emerging News Network

Monday, May 17, 2010

CAIR's Emerging News Network

IPT News
May 17, 2010
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1958/cairs-emerging-news-network

Imagine the reaction if a newspaper hired a former National Rifle Association employee to cover a gun control referendum. Or if a former Goldman Sachs trader was offered by a television network as an objective journalist on financial reform. Even those who agreed with the journalist's point of view would have to acknowledge the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Something similar may be happening when it comes to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group federal law enforcement views with suspicion at best. In three separate instances in less than a month, reporters working for national news organizations have written stories compatible with CAIR's agenda without acknowledging their personal histories with the group. In two of the three cases, the reporter had been a full-fledged CAIR employee. In the third, the reporter had received a CAIR scholarship while a student.

Whether the cases are a matter of coincidence, they fit with an ambition outlined by CAIR co-founder and executive director Nihad Awad. During the 2005 Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference, Awad described the significance of getting more Muslims into mainstream journalism jobs (Hear it here):

"Second, to fix our image in the media over the next ten years, and to turn it, we have to invest in journalism. Today we have about between 50, in my estimate, and 100 Muslim journalists nationwide. In the next ten years, we have to encourage young Muslims to pursue the field of journalism and film making. And every major center in the country has to give a scholarship for one student. Ten years from now we will have 1,000 Muslim journalists and filmmakers. And this will be trusted in shaping the right image about the Muslim community, Muslim Americans and Islam."

News organizations rightly value a diversity in hiring, believing that newsrooms should reflect the communities they cover. Muslim reporters are a part of that diversity. But conflicts of interest remain a legitimate concern, too. If a journalist previously benefited financially from an organization, should he or she cover stories related to it?

In the three recent examples, the news outlet either didn't know about the connection or didn't find it significant enough to re-assign the story or disclose the connection.

1. Sharhaf Mowjood was a government relations manager at CAIR's Los Angeles chapter before getting work with ABC News. Among his assignments with ABC, Mowjood co-authored a story on the FBI shooting of a Detroit imam as agents moved in to arrest him. CAIR, which has been ginning up allegations about the shooting for months, obtained autopsy photos and released some to the media. The ABC story quoted CAIR-Michigan executive director Dawud Walid rebutting FBI claims that Abdullah was dangerous. According to a criminal complaint, Abdullah preached violent jihad and vowed not to be taken peacefully if police ever came for him.

Four co-defendants with Abdullah were arrested without injury after complying with agents' orders to surrender. Abdullah fired his weapon first, FBI officials say, drawing return fire. The same day the ABC story came out, Detroit News reported Abdullah had a previous, violent encounter with a police officer following a 1980 traffic stop.

2. The Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (GMBDR) website reported that the Associated Press assigned former CAIR-Canada spokeswoman Hadeel Al-Shalchi to cover a labor dispute at the Qatari-based website Islamonline. The GMBDR website described Islamonline as "the most prominent voice of the global Muslim Brotherhood," but said Al-Shalchi's story cast the Brotherhood as moderate and Brotherhood spiritual leader and Islamonline founder Youssef al-Qaradawi as a "relative moderate." The Brotherhood's ideology envisions the spread of Islamic law throughout the world. Qaradawi has issued fatwas sanctioning attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq and against Israeli civilians. In 2009, he said Hitler punished Jews "for their corruption" and predicted the next time it happened would be "at the hands of the believers."

3. In the most recent example, Los Angeles Times reporter Raja Abdulrahim included CAIR in a story about the fine line Muslim organizations walk in taking on extremism without "pandering to outsiders who equate Muslims with extremism."

Abdulrahim's college education was helped by a $5,000 CAIR scholarship awarded in 2003, a CAIR-California newsletter shows. As a student, she wrote several guest columns and letters to the student newspaper that were harshly critical of Israel or of U.S. policy after 9/11. In one, Abdulrahim rebutted another student who had been critical of terrorist groups. She felt the student:

"erroneously refers to Hamas and Hizbollah as 'fundamentalist' and 'terror organizations' that have 'murdered innocent Israeli civilians.' It is time we see this conflict for what it really is — present day Imperialism. These Palestinians are not 'terrorizing' Israelis, they are just defending their land and lives."

Such sentiments are well in line with CAIR's ideology. In the 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah, and the 2008-09 Gaza war with Hamas, CAIR ignored terrorist rocket fire on Israeli cities but demanded that the U.S. stop Israeli responses. While it claims to oppose violence against civilians, CAIR officials routinely dodge challenges to condemn terrorist groups like Hamas and Hizballah by name.

Like other Washington-based political groups, CAIR places great emphasis on media relations. It offers guidelines for letter-writing campaigns to local newspapers, coaching sessions for its chapter officials, and sessions at conferences devoted to getting its message out. Here's an assessment of a typical reporter from a PowerPoint presentation prepared by CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper:

On this, CAIR seems to be onto something. Its officials routinely are quoted in daily newspapers and on television about grievances it has, or about issues related to American Muslims. But those news outlets rarely, if ever, inform their audiences of CAIR's questionable history in a Hamas-support network. Those roots are well documented in court records available on the Internet and in the assessment of high ranking federal officials. Perhaps, due to "extreme deadline pressure," reporters don't mind being spoon-fed the message and even the sources to tell their stories.

Federal prosecutors cast CAIR as "a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization, a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew." A year ago, an FBI congressional liaison wrote that the Bureau would not engage in routine communication with CAIR "until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS."

CAIR appears to be the target of a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., but that has not been widely reported.

We emphasize these statements from federal law enforcement officials because of their sources and because CAIR never really has addressed the evidence that generated them. That includes the presence of two CAIR founders on a telephone list for a U.S-based Hamas-support network and the inclusion of CAIR among the network's arms.

Plenty of people may look at the same documents linking CAIR to Hamas support and not see an issue. Fine. But they can't reach that conclusion if their news outlets never inform them.

Perhaps that has to do with the third point in the graphic above. In addition to fearing charges of inaccuracy, reporters abhor accusations of bias. CAIR, in perpetuating its claim as the voice of all Muslim Americans, has a history of labeling critics of the organization as "Islamophobes."

Ultimately, journalism is supposed to be an exercise in pursuit of the truth, of skepticism that challenges people to back up their claims and defend their statements and actions. CAIR already enjoys sympathetic media coverage. Stacking the deck with reporters tied to the organization makes it much more difficult for CAIR to be held to the same standard as other political organizations.

But then again, isn't that the point?

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk