Jihad Migrating to Red States — With Obama’s Blessing

JIHAD1-381x350 (1)

To the savvy analyst of Muslim culture, Obama’s immigration policy is clearly supporting the Islamic jihad agenda and helping to transplant jihadists’ activities in a new unsuspecting land.

By Nonie Darwish:

President Obama has unilaterally changed the immigration law to allow asylum-seekers and refugees who provided “limited material support” to terrorists, to immigrate to the US. This is happening at a time when force is being used in Egypt — and elsewhere in the Middle East — against the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, terrorists and their sympathizers. This is a time when Islamists have few places to go to in the wide-open desert atmosphere of the Middle East, except perhaps to join the mess in Syria and Iraq, or otherwise reform and become ordinary citizens.

Obama could not have picked a worse time to ease immigration requirements for those linked to terror, and who have nowhere else to go and have suddenly found themselves, after the counter-revolution in Egypt, as targets for imprisonment, contempt, or even shooting.

Islamists are now undoubtedly celebrating Obama’s decision to ease the pressure on immigration of terror-linked individuals. Indeed, where else can they go to practice their fanaticism and find newly found respectability and hospitality? To America.

By weakening immigration laws that protect Americans from Islamic terror, Obama is now sending the wrong message both to his own citizens and to the Muslim world. He is basically saying that he does not mind taking in fleeing terrorists and their sympathizers. And he does not seem to care at all about appearances or if he this casts more suspicion on his reputation, despite the constant rumors we all know about, that he is a secret Muslim and that his brother Malik has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

What is also strange is the US State Department is not welcoming fleeing Christians in the Middle East as they should. Most of the visa applications submitted by the desperate and oppressed Egyptian Christians are denied. It was reported that only about 800 to 900 applications were approved by the US for Christian Egyptian immigrants out of 20,000 applications.

This also comes amidst accusations and rumors in Egypt that President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are aiding terrorists and conspiring with the Muslim Brotherhood. One would think that the US would be happy that the Egyptian government and others are clamping down on radical Muslim groups who are ruining the lives of the ordinary citizens in the Middle East. But instead, the Obama administration  changes immigration laws for their “eyes only” to welcome escaping Muslim troublemakers whose activities are now unwelcome in Egypt.

Obama is doing this not only amidst claims that he is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, but he also appears to the Muslim world as responding positively to the radical Sunni Cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who recently called on the US government to wage jihad for Allah, to help support the “freedom fighters,” meaning terrorists, in Syria, and adding that “Allah willing, your [US] aid will increase.” This is the first time in history that a radical Muslim leader publicly asks America to join in the jihad for the sake of Allah.

Read more at Front Page

******************

CJR: 

This is just another step in the ongoing efforts to legitimize what US policy has traditionally defined as terrorism. Remember the FBI Touchstone Document on Guiding principles for counter terrorism training?

mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s)

As Diana West and Clare Lopez have said, Uncle Sam has joined the jihad!

They are going after our most effective tools for fighting terrorism by changing the defintitions of terrorism and material support for terrorism. We’ve all seen Obama “defining down” al Qaeda and declaring the war on terror to be over. There are ongoing efforts to delegitimize the findings of the Holy Land Foundation trial and don’t be surprised when you see them take Hamas and Hezbollah off the designated terror list.

Please read Clare Lopez’ article from last June to understand the peril we are in:

Listen to Stephen Coughlin discuss this with Frank Gaffney on Secure Freedom Radio:

Aiding Terrorists May Not Disqualify Future Immigration Candidates

Committee Majority Staff Issues Report on Lack of State Department Accountability for Benghazi Attacks

!cid_image006_jpg@01CF23FBWashington, D.C. – Today, the House Foreign Affairs Committee majority staff issued a report detailing the lack of accountability within the State Department following the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks at the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.  The report, entitled, “Benghazi:  Where is the State Department Accountability,” follows the majority investigative staff’s extensive 16-month oversight, during which staff examined the State Department’s conduct before, during, and after the terrorist attacks.

The report is available HERE.

The report contains the following key findings:

  • Before September 11, 2012, U.S. intelligence agencies provided extensive warning of the deteriorating security environment in eastern Libya, including al-Qaeda’s expanding operations and the mounting risk to U.S. personnel and facilities.
  • These threats were well-understood by even the most senior officials in Washington; then-Secretary Clinton “was certainly aware” of this reporting, as well as the fact that extremists claiming to be affiliated with al-Qaeda were active in the area.
  • Despite this increasingly dangerous environment, State Department officials in Washington denied requests for additional security from Department personnel on the ground in Libya, and insisted on an aggressive timeline for drawing down support.  By contrast, the CIA increased security at its facilities in Benghazi.
  • The Accountability Review Board (ARB) convened in response to the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam recommended that the Secretary of State “take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad.”
  • The ARB convened by Secretary Clinton after the Benghazi attack was seriously deficient in several respects, most notably in its failure to review or comment on the actions of the Department’s most senior officials, including Secretary Clinton herself.
  • Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry have failed to hold anyone accountable for the flawed decisions about security in Benghazi.  Instead, the four employees cited by the ARB were temporarily suspended with pay and ultimately reassigned to new positions within the Department.  Two of these officials subsequently retired voluntarily, and not as the result of disciplinary action.
  • The “talking points” controversy further revealed a Department leadership more interested in its reputation than establishing the facts and accountability.
  • Tellingly, during the entirety of Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the State Department went for a historically long period without a permanent Inspector General, a position central to ensuring a culture of accountability within the Department.
  • State Department personnel serve the nation with distinction, operating in the most dangerous areas of the world.  Their security cannot be guaranteed, nor do they expect it to be guaranteed.  What they do expect and deserve is a Department in which everyone is held accountable for his or her performance.
  • While the Committee will continue to press for accountability, it is incumbent upon President Obama and Secretary Kerry to recognize the failures of senior officials and hold them accountable.  Otherwise, another Benghazi scenario, in which U.S. personnel are left vulnerable by irresponsible decision making in Washington, is inevitable.

The report comes two days after the House Republican Leadership published a new website, GOP.gov/Benghazi, devoted to the Benghazi investigations.

 

 

 

Also see:

American Betrayal 2.0

2947115834By Frank Gaffney at CSP:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt should have described November 16, 1933 as a day that will live in infamy.  As syndicated columnist Diana West notes in her splendid new book,American Betrayal, that date marked the beginning of a sustained and odious practice of our government lying to us about the Russians.  It appears that the Obama administration is determined to perpetrate a reprise of this practice.  Call it American Betrayal 2.0.

According to Ms. West, the betrayal syndrome began when FDR normalized relations with the Soviet Union on the basis of a written promise from the Kremlin not to subvert the United States.  Of course, the Soviets lied.  But, for years thereafter, so did our own government – with horrific effects – by insisting the Soviets were reliable friends, and even wartime allies.

Sound familiar?  Today, Team Obama is engaging in its own, serial and disastrous betrayals – from promising you can keep your health care to a deal that will allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program.  But two others regarding the Russians warrant special attention.

First, the New York Times reported on the eightieth anniversary of the infamous normalization deal (without, of course, noting the irony) that the U.S. Department of State was beavering away at a new arrangement that would allow half-a-dozen Russian facilities to be installed across the United States.  Ostensibly, these sites would be used to help the Kremlin build-out and operate its so-called Glonass satellite system, a counterpart to and competitor with America’s Global Positioning System (GPS).

There are several things wrong with this picture.  First, it is not clear why we would want to help the Russians compete with the GPS.  Second, the practical effect of the Red Army having its own global positioning system is that it may make ours a more certain target in the event of any future hostilities between us, or perhaps even between the United States and Russian clients.

Then, there is the problem that Glonass signals may interfere with those controlling our GPS satellites, especially if the Russian ground stations might be in proximity to the American ones.  Another serious concern has to be precisely what electronic equipment the Russians will put into these facilities.  Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, chairman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee, recently wrote three agency heads out of concern that, among other things, some of such gear might not actually be needed for Glonass – but be useful for espionage, electronic warfare or other activities inimical to our security.

According to the Times report: “For the State Department, permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to Mr. Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

It is a travesty, but in keeping with past betrayals of America, that our State Department – presumably, with White House approval – believes that we need to make further concessions in response to bad behavior by the Kremlin.  The outrageousness of such an idea is compounded by the fact that the folks in Foggy Bottom neglected to secure its approval from either the Defense Department or the intelligence community.  Both are reportedly up in arms about it – as indeed they should be.  But will they prevail?

At the same time, the Obama administration has another betrayal in the works.  This one involves not only the nation as a whole, but several of its Democratic allies in the United States Senate.

It seems that Team Obama is intent on dismantling at least one squadron of fifty Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missiles as its preferred approach to meeting the reductions in nuclear forces required by the seriously defective New START Treaty with Russia.  A timeline provided to Congress indicates that, in order for that to happen by the “treaty compliance date” of February 5, 2018, the Air Force needs to begin the lengthy decommissioning process by launching an environmental impact assessment next month.

This should be a shock to Senators Max Baucus and John Tester of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.  They were assured by President Obama that the ICBM forces like those located in Montana and commanded by the Global Strike Command in Louisiana would not be affected by New START.  It was on the basis of such assurances that all three Senators voted for that accord.

These legislators and their colleagues from the other ICBM basing states – Republican John Hoeven and Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Republicans Mike Enzi and John Barrasso of Wyoming – should take the lead in amending the National Defense Authorization Act scheduled to be considered on the Senate floor this week to ensure that, as the President promised, the land-based leg of our nuclear Triad is not further weakened.  That is especially advisable at a time when the Russians are aggressively beefing up their nuclear threat to this country and its allies.

America needs a reset, alright.  It should feature not further concessions to the Russians, however, but an end to the betrayals of our people to the benefit of the Kremlin that have been perpetrated now for eighty years.  No more.

State Department Site Features Radical Mosque

images (52)by IPT News  •  Jun 22, 2009 

Sean Hannity interviews authors of Benghazi: The Definitive Report

coverupThe Right Scoop:

Yesterday Sean Hannity interviewed on his radio show Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb for their new book Benghazi: The Definitive Report. I’ve clipped a portion of their interview below which describes something very different than what we’ve ever heard about what led to the attack on the ‘consulate’ and the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods.

In short there were two operations going on in Benghazi, neither of which Stevens nor the CIA [Petraeus] were made aware, that made the situation on the ground in Benghazi far more dangerous than they even knew. We already know that Stevens was concerned about security, but he didn’t even know the full story.

One of the operations was direct raids against Al-Qaeda conducted by John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor, that instigated blowback in the form of the attack on our ‘consulate’ in Benghazi where Stevens visited that night. But because Stevens wasn’t made aware of these unilateral raids going on in his backyard, there was no way he could have even prepared himself for blowback. Stevens likely didn’t even know why he was being attacked the night he was killed.

Read more at The Right Scoop (with audio of the interview)

From Western Journalism:

Shame on Anyone Who Ever Thought Mohammad Morsi Was a Moderate

By Eric Trager

Nobody should have been surprised when Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi issued a “constitutional declaration” on Thursday asserting total political power. This was, after all, the former Muslim Brotherhood leader’s second power grab since he took office in June, complementing his earlier seizure of legislative and constitution-writing authorities by now insulating himself from judicial oversight. Yet Washington was caught entirely off-guard: Morsi’s power play was at odds with the administration’s view that the Muslim Brotherhood is a “democratic party,” and his impressive handling of last week’s Gaza ceasefire created a modicum of trust between him and President Obama. So the State Department released a predictably confused statement, urging “all Egyptians to resolve their differences … peacefully and through democratic dialogue.”

Washington ought to have known by now that “democratic dialogue” is virtually impossible with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now mobilizing throughout Egypt to defend Morsi’s edict. The reason is that it is not a “democratic party” at all. Rather, it is a cultish organization that was never likely to moderate once it had grasped power.

That’s because the very process through which one becomes a Muslim Brother is designed to weed out moderates. It begins when specially designated Brotherhood recruiters, who work at mosques and universities across Egypt, identify pious young men and begin engaging them in social activities to assess their suitability for the organization. The Brotherhood’s ideological brainwashing begins a few months later, as new recruits are incorporated into Brotherhood cells (known as “families”) and introduced to the organization’s curriculum, which emphasizes Qur’anic memorization and the writings of founder Hassan al-Banna, among others. Then, over a five-to-eight-year period, a team of three senior Muslim Brothers monitors each recruit as he advances through five different ranks of Brotherhood membership—muhib, muayyad, muntasib, muntazim, and finally ach amal, or “active brother.”

Throughout this process, rising Muslim Brothers are continually vetted for their embrace of the Brotherhood’s ideology, commitment to its cause, and—most importantly—willingness to follow orders from the Brotherhood’s senior leadership. As a result, Muslim Brothers come to see themselves as foot soldiers in service of the organization’s theocratic credo: “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” Meanwhile, those dissenting with the organization’s aims or tactics are eliminated at various stages during the five-to-eight-year vetting period.

Read more at TNR

Has the US Administration Decided to Get Rid of Jordan’s King Abdullah?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Unless the US clarifies its position regarding King Abdullah and reiterates its full backing for his regime, the Muslim fundamentalists are likely to step up there efforts to create anarchy and lawlessness in the kingdom. Washington needs to reassure King Abdullah and his followers that it will not allow the creation of an Islamic terror republic in Jordan.

Has the US Administration decided to get rid of Jordan’s King Abdullah?

This is the question that many Jordanians have been asking in the past few days following a remark made by a spokesman for the US State Department.

Deputy State Department Spokesman Mark Toner managed to create panic [and anger] in the Royal Palace in Amman when he stated that there was “thirst for change” in Jordan and that the Jordanian people had “economic, political concerns,” as well as “aspirations.”

The spokesman’s remark has prompted some Jordanian government officials to talk about a US-led “conspiracy” to topple King Abdullah’s regime.

The talk about a “thirst for change” in Jordan is seen by the regime in Amman as a green light from the US to King Abdullah’s enemies to increase their efforts to overthrow the monarchy.

The US spokesman’s remark came as thousands of Jordanians took to the streets to protest against their government’s tough economic measures, which include cancelling subsidies for fuel and gas prices.

The widespread protests, which have been dubbed “The November Intifada,” have resulted in attacks on numerous government offices and security installations throughout the kingdom. Dozens of security officers have been injured, while more than 80 demonstrators have been arrested.

And for the first time, protesters in the Jordanian capital have been calling for overthrowing King Abdullah. In an unprecedented move, demonstrators last week tried to march on the monarch’s palace in Amman in scenes reminiscent of anti-regime protests in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Egypt.

The Jordanian authorities claim that non-Jordanian nationals who infiltrated the border have been involved in the violence, the worst to hit the kingdom in decades. The authorities say that Saudi and Syrian Muslim fundamentalists are responsible for attacks on government offices and other institutions, including banks.

Some Jordanian officials have pointed a blaming finger at Saudi Arabia and Qatar for encouraging the anti-regime protests and facilitating the infiltration of Muslim fundamentalists into the kingdom.

The officials believe that Jordan is paying the price of refusing to play a larger and stronger role in Saudi-Qatari efforts to topple Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

The Real Why of Benghazi, part 2

By :

Follow-up to: WEAPONS HUNTING: The Reason for the 9-11 Murders in Libya,” by Denise Simon, covering the topics of MANPAD missile recovery and the operative relationship between the Obama administration and Gitmo-released al Qaeda leader in Libya, Bin Qumu.

Get out the PAM cooking spray so nothing sticks to anyone involved in the murders and failed diplomatic operations in Benghazi. Yet, there is no one more responsible than the handful at the White House and the State Department. Remember that oath, to protect and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic. The date sadly was 9-11 but in this case it was 9-11, #11, an anniversary that historically brought out elevated states of alert and a position of readiness was always invoked, globally.

Such was not the case at not only Benghazi, but at all U.S. foreign government locations worldwide. This anniversary witnessed a vastly elevated number of major demonstrations at embassy locations on all continents against the United States and NATO partners however the White House and the State Department were in party mode.

Prior to the 11th anniversary, there was a long trail of detailed threats published for Libya just weeks earlier. In August 2012, intelligence reports spelled out in clear terms, the names and locations of jihadist activities. These came from the counter-terrorism professionals and Intelligence Community (IC) professionals as they provided to critical personnel and decision makers within the Obama administration. What is worse, not one person in this administration asked a pro-active single question framed as, “Is there enough security personnel in any of the diplomatic posts in Libya and should we review the safety of our people there?” This administration has proven a higher concern for a ‘green energy’ agenda, ensuring Chevy Volts were celebrated for the vehicle pool, and yet the U.S. embassy in Barbados even had an SST Marine division on security duty.

In Benghazi, the United States was the “last flag standing” after many months of assassination attempts, bombings, attacks, and protests since the fall of Qaddafi. All other nations had vacated the area earlier. Perhaps it is prudent for our purposes here to count all the attacks on U.S. embassies or those of our allies in the last several years. We should then question the need to have diplomatic posts in areas of such volatile and proven possibilities. If the need is great as determined by foreign policy stances, then shouldn’t we also question the level of security? When posts in safer places have such large Marine contingents and dangerous places do not, does this not place that foreign policy stance into question?

Marines currently serve at 148 US embassies and consulates; however Libya wasn’t one of them. The MSGs’ primary mission is to provide internal security services at designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified information and equipment that is vital to national security of the United States of America. The secondary mission of the MSG is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises/facilities during exigent circumstances that require immediate aid or action. It is important to mention here however, that President Obama has said publicly and mandated throughout this administration that he and all within government will stand on the side of the Muslims.

As a result the clear conclusion is President Obama as well as the Secretaries of State and Defense would rather eliminate all visible deterrents of protection and security that offend Muslim sensibilities and have in fact done so, sadly, even with the approval of the Joint Chief, General Martin Dempsey.

In the case of Benghazi, it is an established hotbed of jihad activity even while Qaddafi ruled the nation and even more so after he was captured and killed. Today, Libya is completely unstable and has no real government in place, certainly not one that can be embraced by any Western culture or leadership, except that of the Obama administration. Since the fall of Qaddafi, the United States had several clandestine objectives underway as posted by SUA here on September 20th. As a follow up to that article, the work by covert contractors and the CIA in Libya, is now wasted and remains not only unfinished but, all of the weapons and terror factions now go unchecked while unknown quantities of Qaddafi’s weapons are making their way to even Syria today.

Yes, all of Libya is dangerous, but it begs the question on how CNN was able to keep journalists safe even in Benghazi as the US FBI was having trouble gaining access. So the examination remains, why the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, an information officer, the two former SEALs, the RSO’s and the FBI were so unprotected and felt unsafe and called many times for more armed security. Could it be that the administration placed its faith in a set of Islamist networks to protect and defend our national security and sovereignty in Libya or other countries where there are continued attacks and killings against the West?

With these questions in mind, let’s look at some of the people in and around Libya that our State Department approved for interaction, security, and partners in country.

This is good…you’re going to want to read it all at Gulag Bound

Denise Simon is Senior Research Analyst on Domestic and Foreign Policy for Stand Up America; also 3rd Officer for Watchmen of America, Public Affairs Officer, and an Intel Officer for Watchmen of Florida. Denise is a member of the International Association of Counterterrorism and Security Professionals and is a First Observer, in addition to an executive career in national and international telecommunications, and non-profit organization.

Criticism Mounts Over State Envoy

BY: October 5, 2012 1:48 pm

Jewish leaders expressed outrage Friday over the State Department’s praise for, and defense of, a controversial Muslim leader who has defended terrorist groups and suggested that Israel may have been responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), was picked to represent the United States government at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) annual 10-day human rights conference, the Human Dimension Implementation Meetings (HDIM).

Al-Marayati’s well-known anti-Israel bona fides prompted Jewish leaders and others to express outrage over the Obama administration’s selection.

“It is regrettable that someone with such distorted, conspiratorial views—even with a lackluster apology—is delegated by our government to represent our country abroad,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement to the Free Beacon.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, argued that the State Department is showing inconsistency by touting an individual who has defended the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are designated by the U.S. as terrorist organizations.

“One would assume that individuals selected to represent the United States at an international human rights conclave would share our government’s longstanding policy that Hamas and Hezbollah are dangerous terrorist organizations,” Cooper told the Free Beacon. “But Mr. Salam al-Marayati and his organization are long-time advocates that these deadly terror groups be removed from the U.S. terrorist list.”

“With terrorism continuing to roil the Middle East,” Cooper added, “the question is why the U.S. State Department would say he is ‘highly credible’?”

Read more

See previous post: Anti-Israel Advocate Reps U.S. at Rights Conference

U.S. State Department Witnessed 1974 Birth of Eurabia

“Thus, nearly four decades ago, our own State Department was fully aware of the Eurabian project Bat Ye’or has subsequently elucidated in painstaking detail. Such independently confirmatory U.S. evidence underscores the intellectual and moral cretinism of those who spray charges of “conspiracism” at Bat Ye’or, and worse still, viciously attack Geert Wilders, the most courageous European political leader resisting the abhorrent, dystopian endgame of Eurabia’s fanatical promulgators.”

May 4th, 2012 by Andrew Bostom

Serendipitously, perhaps, in the midst of Geert Wilders’ visit to the U.S., warning of the consequences of Europe’s ongoing Islamization, today I came across a State Department memo from the U.S. embassy in Madrid, dated September 19, 1974 (1974 Madrid 05880), declassified June 30, 2005. This document reveals that the U.S. was fully aware of the advent of “Eurabia,” precisely as self-characterized in an official European socio-political journal bearing the title Eurabia.

Eurabia was the title of a journal published in the mid-1970s  by the European Committee for the Coordination of Friendship Associations with the Arab World.  Eurabia”s editor was Lucien Bitterlin, president of the Association of Franco-Arab Solidarity; the journal was published jointly by Euro-Arab associations in London, Paris, and Geneva.  Eurabia served as a Euro-Arab Dialogue mouthpiece.

The formal Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) created an alphabet soup of European Community- and, later, European Union-funded organizations charged with planning joint political, cultural, social, industrial, commercial, and technical-scientific projects.  It also rapidly spawned a European Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation whose members represented a broad spectrum of European Community political groups.  Biannual Euro-Arab Parliamentary meetings convened alternately in Europe and the Arab nations.  Roughly 100 European and Arab members of their respective parliaments attended, along with observers from the European Community/European Union Commission, the Arab League, and other international organizations.  During an initial meeting in Damascus, September 14-17, 1974, the Arab delegates established their political preconditions for economic agreements with Western Europe, specifically demanding:

1. Israel’s unconditional withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines

2. Arab sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem

3. Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) participation (lead by Yasser Arafat), in any negotiations

4. European Community pressure on the United States to detach it from Israel and bring its policies closer to those of the Arab states

The September 19, 1974 State Department memo (1974 Madrid 05880) refers to a parallel meeting that took place in Cordoba September 12-16, 1974, as it notes, “one-time capital of [the] caliphate of Cordoba,  and one of [the] most historic centers of [the] Moorish legacy in Spain.” Emphasizing the unique nature of this Cordoban conference, the memo provides these summary details regarding the attendees:

THIS CONFERENCE, REPORTEDLY FIRST EVER HELD OF ITS KIND, WAS ATTENDED BY NUMEROUS MEMBERS OF THE SPANISH CLERGY AND PRESIDED OVER BY BISHOP CIRARDA OF CORDOBA, AND WAS ALSO ATTENDED BY CERTAIN FOREIGN CATHOLIC CLERGY RESIDENT IN ARAB COUNTRIES, NOTABLY CARDINAL DUVAL OF ALGIERS AND THE BISHOP OF ORAN. GOS WAS REPRESENTED BY DIRECTORS GENERAL FROM MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affairs?] AND MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND TOURISM, AND PROVINCE AND CITY OF CORDOBA WERE REPRESENTED BY SOME OF THEIR PRINCIPAL LOCAL OFFICIALS. ARAB COUNTRIES REPRESENTED AT CONFERENCE INCLUDED EGYPT, ALGERIA, LEBANNON [sic], IRAQ, SAUDI ARABIA, AND JORDAN. THERE REPORTEDLY ALSO WAS A PALESTINIAN DELEGATION PRESENT. MOST HIGH RANKING DELEGATE TO ATTEND THE CONFERENCE WAS DR. ABDEL AZIZ KAMEL, WHO IS BOTH VICE PRES AND MINISTER OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS IN EGYPT. THE IMPORTANT EGYPTIAN DELEGATION ALSO INCLUDED AN EGYPTIAN CHRISTIAN PARLIAMENTARIAN, ALBERT BARSOUM, WHO ALSO REPORTEDLY HAS MINISTERIAL RANK IN EGYPTIAN GOVT. MANY ARAB DELEGATIONS WERE HEADED BY THEIR COUNTRIES’ AMBASSADORS IN MADRID.

And what is described as the “emotional and symbolic highlight of the conference” occurred on September 13, 1974:

WHEN MOSLEM CONFEREES WERE ALLOWED TO HOLD MOSLEM PRAYER SERVICE IN CORDOBA’S FAMED MOSQUE-CATHEDRAL. THIS WAS REPORTEDLY FIRST TIME IN SEVEN CENTURIES, I.E., SINCE 1236 [the] WHEN HUGE CORDOBA MOSQUE WAS CONVERTED INTO CHRISTIAN CATHEDRAL IN WAKE OF CASTILLIAN RECONQUEST OF CITY, THAT A MOSLEM PRAYER SERVICE HAS BEEN HELD IN CORDOBA’S MOSQUE TURNED CATHEDRAL.

Unfortunately, the State Department analyst omits the fact that the “mosque turned cathedral” had simply been restored to a cathedral as a result of the 13th century Castillian reconquest.

Read the rest