≡ Menu

The Terror Industry and Anti-Jihadism, Who Benefits?

Norman Finkelstein coined the phrase the “Holocaust industry” in his book of the same name, to describe the nexus of Jewish groups, lawyers, politicians, and communal leaders who enrich their power and pocketbook by trumpeting the anti-Semitism threat and causing anxiety and paranoia among world Jewry as a result.  As a result of Finkelstein’s acute analysis, he’s earned outrage and scorn from those in the Jewish community who he has skewered.

For the past decade or more, since the 1990s demise of the Communist “menace” and its accompanying gravy train, neocons have turned to terror as their new bogeyman.  A new Terror Industry has sprung up and it is populated with the usual retired generals (William Boykin), former government officials (Bolton, Gaffney), corporate opportunists (Aubrey Chernick), ideologues and intellectual heavy-lifters (Pipes, Horowitz, Podhoretz, Peretz, Kristol).  Just as the Jefferson’s tree of liberty needed to be fed with the blood of tyrants, so the Terror apparatus needs to be fed with new political fodder.

Such is the effort led by Jewish pro-Israel neocons to turn anti-jihadism into the Terror Industry’s new mantra.

There at the creation was Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy.  You’ll recall that Gaffney was a middle-ranking member of Ronald Reagans’ Defense Department.  As early as 1990, Christopher Hitchens, before he became a parody of himself, wrote in his book, How Neo-Conservatives Perish,  about Gaffney’s prescience in grasping at the need for a new source of political power to replace the decline of Communism.  Since then, he’s become one of the go-to guys for all things hawkish, neocon and pro-Israel among policy wonks.

Today, Matt Duss wrote about a report on alleged American Muslim terror threats which was, I’m embarrassed to say, actually endorsed by three members of Congress.  Among them were Her Looniness Michelle Bachman and Peter Hoekstra, former chair of the House Intelligence Committee.  If you want a sense of what the national security agenda of a new Republican House majority would be read the report, Sharia: The Threat To America.

According to it, the new Muslim bogeyman is Shariah, about which the authors in their Times op-ed say:

Today, the United States faces a similarly insidious ideological threat:Shariah, the authoritarian doctrine that animates the Islamists and their jihadism…

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates…

The other side of the divide is dominated by “Islamists,” who are Muslim supremacists. Like erstwhile proponents of communism and Nazism, these supremacists – some terrorists, others employing stealthier means – seek to impose a global theocratic and authoritarian regime, called a caliphate. On this side of the divide, Shariah is a compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to wage jihad to install and to which the rest of the world is required to submit.

For these ideologues, Shariah is not a private matter. They see the West as an infidel enemy to be conquered, not a culture and civilization to be embraced or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of government like ours to coexist peacefully with the end-state they seek.

…we need to come to grips with Shariah. Whether pursued through violent jihad or the stealthier techniques the Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad” or dawa (the call to Islam), Shariah rejects fundamental premises of constitutional governance and American society…

Here’s the money quote:

Shariah adherents – including a network of Muslim Brotherhood-connected organizations operating in the United States – are seriously pursuing civilization jihad in this country. Their agenda is about power, not faith…

…The endgame of Islamist ideology is the same whether pursued by terrorists or nonviolent activists: to extort American society into Sharia compliance.

The Sharia Report was sponsored by Gaffney’s CSP, and written by three former Cold Warriors turned anti-jihadis, among them James Woolsey and the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy.  In the Washington Times where he celebrated the release of the report he had the temerity to say that among the Muslims Pres. Obama invites to the White House for Iftar dinners might be members of Al Qaeda.  He’s also notorious for claiming that Pres. Obama “might” still be a Muslim.  He also claims that the current administration has “communicated submission” to America’s enemies.

Duss in his post, has identified an old familiar Jewish extremist face peeking out of the CSP woodwork, its general counsel, David Yerushalmi (ne Beychok).  When last seen in this blog, he had been banished by, of all people, Daniel Pipes for embarrassing the group, Stop the Madrassa (where he also was general counsel), with his ultra-extremist beliefs.  That group was the catalyst for the anti-Muslim backlash that led New York’s mayor and schools chancellor to demand the resignation of Debbie Almontaser, the founding principal of the Muslim charter school, the Khalil Gibran Academy.  She has successfully sued the city under an EEOC suit.

Though trained as a lawyer, Yerushalmi earns his living from the Terror Industry and its new anti-jihadi adjunct.  He has reportedly become Frank Gaffney’s “rabbi” when it comes to the study of Islamism and jihadism.  But where has Yerushalmi learned about Islam?  Does he have a graduate degree, even from as slanted a source as Bernard Lewis?  No.  Did he study Islam with any noted scholars (even non-Muslim)?  Doubtful.  What Yerushalmi has are some half-baked notions he’s either read in a book or developed out of his own paranoiac imagination about the Muslim menace.

Among Yerushalmi’s more wacky views: American Muslims should be confined to concentration camps for the threat they pose of overthrowing the government.  This is a quotation from his website:

The Congress of the United States of America shall declare the US at war with the Muslim Nation.

He and his anti-jihadi Gauleiter, Dave Gaubatz, orchestrated a “sting” against D.C. area local mosques by posing as worshippers and seeking to “out” the imams for their alleged support of jihad and terror.  You’ll recall this is the same Gaubatz whose son posed as an intern while working at CAIR and stole internal organizational documents which dad was hoping would prove CAIR’s commitment to a Sharia overthrow of the U.S. government.  Daddy G. just accepted a legal ruling that he must return the documents which his son had stolen.

Returning to the other Dave (Yerushalmi), giving the vote to African-Americans was a foolish idea.  He calls this “raw” or “liberal democracy” and he’s agin’ it.  Doesn’t think much of Abe Lincoln, either.  Says the Founding Fathers opposed democracy as well.  He may be one of the few Jewish white supremacists around.  He calls Bill O’Reilly a “secular progressive” and of Sean Hannity, he says he ”participates in the destruction of America’s national existence.”

He’s apparently learned a lesson or two about keeping his outlandish views under wraps because his website, SANEWorks (Society of Americans for National Existence), used to be publicly accessible and now is only available to those who pony up the $2,000 subscription fee.

At the press conference which featured the announcement of report, Matt questioned Gaffney about the origin of the notions of Islam found in it.  The former secured a damaging admission from the anti-jihadi wonk:

Noting some of the report’s broad and controversial claims about Islamic law, such as that all Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad against unbelievers, I asked Gaffney how many actual Muslims or Islamic scholars he and his group had consulted with in writing the report. He could not name any, though he noted that he had consulted with various Muslims “over the years.”

So there you have it. A report on the threat posed by Islamic law to the United States, one of whose leaders admits to having started studying Islam only three years ago, whose authors admit consulting with no actual Muslims, produced by a think tank that has previously claimed that key members of the Obama administration are part of the Iran Lobby.

In short, this is all nonsense.  But it is very dangerous nonsense.  It is nonsense that could easily lead us into war with Iran. And that would be for starters.  These ghoulish hatemongers propose a holy war against 1.4-billion people.  They would have our country in a perpetual state of conflict, a latter-day anti-Muslim Sparta.  As for me, I prefer to be Athens any day.

We must say no to the Terror Industry and their anti-Muslim ideologues.  If they are ascendant in the national political debate, it means the destruction of everything many of us hold dear about this country.  And we’ll say Dick Cheney was a piker by comparison.

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtube
{ 11 comments… add one }
  • Deïr Yassin September 16, 2010, 11:24 AM

    The proponents of the “Terror Industry” already have their first allies:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AX7lab_oaE

  • Crimson Ghost September 16, 2010, 11:35 AM

    Horrible as these anti-Moslem fanatics are they are not the real problem. As Juan Cole pointed out recently in his blog, about half of the nation’s 400 billionaires are in favor of attacking Iran. And although Cole did not say so, most of these war mongering billionaires are almost certainly Zionist Jews who account for something like 50% of the nation’s billionaires as a glance at the Forbes 400 will quickly reveal.

    Just as the support of key German industrialists was a key factor behind Hitler’s rise to power in 1930s Germany, the drive to attack Iran and perhaps set up concentration camps for US Moslems would not get anywhere without the tacit support of many billionaire Zionist Jews and a few gentile billionaires like Rupert Murdoch as well.

    • John September 16, 2010, 2:41 PM

      And the site moderator allows such disgusting comments on this site ?

      • Richard Silverstein September 16, 2010, 4:52 PM

        Cool yr jets, bud. This site doesn’t need Zionist thought police. That’s my job.

    • Richard Silverstein September 16, 2010, 4:40 PM

      Whoa, did you forget the comment rules?? If so, go back & either read ‘em for the 1st time or read them again if you already have. I don’t go for conspiracy theories nor do I go for such jingoism. If that’s yr game you can play it elsewhere. You’re on moderation till I can sure that you understand the rules & adhere to ‘em.

  • bar_kochba132 September 16, 2010, 2:20 PM

    Richard-
    Crimson Ghost says “Zionist Jews” want an attack on Iran. As a “Zionist Jew” what do you have to say about that?

    Regarding the Communist “menace” which you put into quotes-did you mean to imply that there was no such “menace” in reality? If you were to talk to people from Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Khazhakstan, Uzbekistan and what used to be East Germany, do you think they would say there was no such thing as a Communist “menace”?

    • Richard Silverstein September 16, 2010, 4:51 PM

      The Communist menace was a vastly overrated phenomenon which our CIA & politicians used for their own partisan purposes. Such overrating has been verfied by policy wonks who’ve gone back & reviewed the actual estimates of Soviet power in CIA reports fr. the era. Hence the term “menace” in quotes. The same holds true for the “Muslim menace.”

  • Ex Israeli September 16, 2010, 3:57 PM

    They might be Zionists (whatever that means), they might be billionaires (they are), but at least to me they are first and foremost criminals.

    A common criminal will break the law – and in this case his victim(s) may be, normally, one or two persons.

    Other criminals (such as the ones pushing for never ending ‘war on terror’) don’t break ANY law but their victims numbered in thousands and millions.

    People tend to demand quick justice for the 1st kind of criminals yet are totally confused about what to think about the 2nd type. Too many don’t see them for what they are; they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge it. In these cases people need a lot of time to adjust and change. This is such a sad fact about human nature. Just a bit.

  • Crimson Ghost September 16, 2010, 5:35 PM

    Itanian-Americans who oppose the clerical regime still very much against a US attack on their country.

    I got this mesage today

    “My name is Reza Aslan. I’m an Iranian American and like you, I care about my family, my community and my two countries – the US and Iran.

    I am writing you because I’m very concerned about the risk of war between our two countries – a war that some say is necessary in order to keep the peace.

    War cannot keep the peace. War would be devastating for the Iranian people. War would be devastating for America and, indeed, the world. And the first victims would be the human rights and democracy defenders in Iran – those same people who inspired us so much last year.

    Each day, this situation becomes more serious. There is even a resolution before Congress to “green light” a first strike on Iran by Israel. This is the first step toward enabling an all-out war. Now that crippling sanctions have been passed, war hawks are openly advocating for what has been their objective all along – an attack on Iran.

    We need to make our voices heard. We must act now and not wait for war to start to then try and stop it. We must prevent it.

    But are our voices being heard in Washington? Is there anyone representing us?

    Fortunately, there is. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) is the leading voice for our community in Washington DC.

    Just two years ago, NIAC worked with leading Jewish-American and peace groups to defeat a Congressional resolution that would have paved the way for a US-Iran war. Our communities stood together and helped avoid disaster.

    NIAC is once again leading the way. I’m proud to be a NIAC supporter, and I want you to be a part of this movement too. We need your help. Please make a $100 donation today. Help us raise $50,000 by October 1 and make our voice stronger.

    We need to stand together to stop this madness now. That is the least we can do for those fighting for their rights in Iran.

    Join us today. Thank you”

  • Laurence September 16, 2010, 10:16 PM

    Please can you elaborate on your comments about Christopher Hitchens having become a parody of himself?

Leave a Comment