Author: Daniel Pipes
Publication: The Jerusalem Post
Date: September 20, 2001
The terror attacks on America could
not have taken place without a sophisticated infrastructure of agents operating
inside the United States that gathered information, planned, and then executed
the four hijackings. That infrastructure, in turn, could operate thanks
in large part to the protection provided by America's militant Islamic
lobby.
The militant Islamic lobby impeded
law enforcement's ability to devote special attention to Middle Eastern
passengers, a procedure that surely would have caught the four suicide
teams. The lobby also forestalled the closing down of Web sites and the
expulsion of foreigners associated with terrorist organizations like Osama
bin Laden's.
Which raises a question: How could
a lobby protecting violent extremists acquire such influence? It has very
carefully covered its tracks - saying one thing in private and another
in public. To see how this duality works, consider the case of American
Muslims for Jerusalem. This certainly appears to be a moderate organization.
Founded in May 1999 and located near Capitol Hill, AMJ portrays itself
as an innocent "association dedicated to providing a Muslim perspective
on the issue of Jerusalem" and it movingly appeals for "a Jerusalem that
symbolizes religious tolerance and dialogue." AMJ notes "the profound attachment
Muslims have to Jerusalem" and reasonably calls for free access by all
to the city's religious sites. Only somewhat more assertively does it repeat
standard Palestinian rhetoric about the inadmissibility of sovereignty
gained through force, the imperative to stop the building of Jewish housing,
and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
So tame is AMJ's public stance that
it does not repeat the usual Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being the capital
of Palestine, much less does it deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem.
Unfortunately, this public moderation
hides a totally different private discourse.
At its closed events, AMJ reveals
its true colors, purveying precisely the kind of hate that might inspire
a suicide hijacker.
The pattern was set at AMJ's first
major event, a fundraising dinner in November 1999, which one participant
has described as "crudely anti-Jewish." Speakers like Nihad Awad and Abdurahman
Alamoudi vied with one another in verbally assaulting the State of Israel
and American Jews. In particular, they spun an elaborate conspiracy theory
about Jewish control of the United States and Zionist brainwashing of American
Christians.
Those Christians, AMJ speakers insisted,
are now ready to rebel against this alleged Jewish domination - except
that they fear going public out of fright of their Jewish "masters." Here
Muslims have a crucial role in encouraging Christians to rise up to end
their subjugation. Only a united Muslim-Christian front, led by Muslims,
can break the supposed Zionist lock on America.
The dinner's keynote speaker, Issa
Nakhleh of the Arab Supreme Council for Palestine (himself a Christian),
proposed a specific scheme for achieving this goal. By his (fanciful) calculations,
the Israel lobby spends $20 million a year to buy members of Congress and
have them impose the "Jewish" message on Christians. Arabs and Muslims
can easily do better, Nakhleh suggested, by sending fundraising delegations
to Saudi Arabia and the emirates. "I am sure you will get $10 million from
these two, and Iran will give you $10 million," thereby surpassing the
supposed pro-Israel funding. (Never mind that it is illegal to lobby Congress
with money that comes from abroad).
The evening's excess of inaccuracy,
misunderstanding, conspiracy theorizing, fanaticism, and illegality is
all the more noteworthy, because American Muslims for Jerusalem is no fringe
outfit but a joint effort sponsored by six of the most powerful American
Islamic institutions, including those most often invited to the White House
and cited by the media. AMJ itself has won signal victories lobbying such
American corporations as Burger King and Disney.
The covert radicalism of American
Muslim organizations has two implications. First, AMJ and its six sponsoring
organizations must all be systematically excluded and marginalized. Government
and corporate policymakers should not meet with them. The media should
not quote them as authorities. Immigration officials should study closely
whom they invite from abroad. Tax authorities should scour their books
for illegal transactions. Religious leaders should exclude them from ecumenical
events.
Second, moderate Muslim Americans
need to organize themselves and repudiate organizations like AMJ and its
ilk. This task will likely become even more urgent as those organizations'
role in easing the way for last week's terrorism is fully revealed.
