All the good Christiane created with her good special on the Islamic radicals in England was erased last night with that cruddy special. Moral equivalence is the most dangerous oxymoron of our time. It is a disease affecting the Western world... much like the diseases that inflicted Athens during the Peloponnesian Wars... it too may be our undoing.

Al Jazeera lady is married to Jamie Rubin the former spokesman for Madeleine Albright, and likely to have a role in a future Democratic State Department.

It was a truly depressing spectacle. You did a great job of telling it like it was, a shill-job for the Palestinians and Jew haters.

I watched 4 minutes of it, to see if it would be as bad as I had anticipated. Caught exactly when she blamed ALL the violence of the intafada on Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, conveniently never mentioning Arafat's written, documented orchestration of the violence that followed.

I'm not shocked it was worse for the rest of the 2 hours, and am glad you had the fortitude to sit through such disgusting tripe so you could tell others (and it was a great device, to call her al-Jazeera lady, because she surely would qualify for a position there.

Of all nights, last night I telephoned our cousin, Shani Hikind, at 9:10 pm. She said, "I can't talk, there's a special on Israel on CNN now." I quickly hung up and put on CNN, not realizing that in a moment I would be seeing her segment with Dov - totally edited to make them look weak in spite Amanpour's calling them a power couple. Shani, although looking good,was shown dancing and appeared to be begging for money; Dov, I'm sure, was cut off in mid-thought. Other frustrating aspects: the "powerful" AIPAC influencing politicians in spite of presidential decrees, and the emphasis on individuals who operated outside Israeli law. The claim that the West Bank is occupied illegally. The show is called "God's Warriors," so you could say Amanpour's point of view is to describe fringe elements. However, there was limited perspective of history, motive and causation, such as no mention of who started the wars of '48 and '67. And how'd you like seeing the Mufti sitting on his throne lording over the Temple Mount? Ariel Sharon became the instigator of the intifada and the person who was responsible for the massacre in Lebanon, as if the Palestinians had no responsibility for either. You could say to Amanpour's credit that she presented the opposing block by having leftists on the show, but they were just as maddening in their own extremism. Did it not appear as if Israel, Jews and their supporters are all just a bunch of crazy fools?

Generally, it was sickening, and I was biting my nails, which I haven't done in ages. Shani returned my call directly after the program. I think she was in shock, because she wasn't reacting to the slanted viewpoint of the show, that is, she didn't sound angry or upset. Maybe she's used to it. She mentioned that the lawyer who walked with Amanpour along the security wall was an adversary of the fundraising organization where she is employed, Ateret Kohanim, and that the security guard interviewed in shadow was such a sweet, modest guy.

The Hikinds will be traveling to Israel this week. They will be visiting our family in Efrat, a beautiful community in the West Bank which is facing the very real possibility, ironically, of the building of a security wall close to people's backyards. It will be interestiing to see what Amanpour has to say tonight, whether she will allow words such as "hate," "propaganda," "evil," and "destruction of Israel/Jews," or whether it will be all about oppression, occupation, murder of Arab children, revenge and return to the homeland.

From your Seraphic Sister-in-Law.

Great analysis, Rena. You forgot to mention the best part, you are now not only Seraphic sister-in-law, but "Power Cousin!"

I like your nickname for Ampour.

If this wasn't such a serious issue, I'd be cracking up.

Now I really can't wait to meet you. Perhaps I'll be in your area next summer...

I watched part of that last night and I thought of you, and I hoped you would comment on it here. I'm afraid that some people see programs like that and they think it must be right. They don't stop to think that the producers of this type of program have an agenda to begin with and that is what drives the content.

I'm sure tonight's program will be sympathetic to the Isl@mofacist, and tomorrow night's program will make Christians (like me) look stupid - so I'm going to a church picnic instead of watching! ;-)

Frankly George Bush and other Republicans, and Olmert and other Laborites (and even some in Kadima?) by granting recognition — tacit or explicit, diplomatic or financial — to the Hamas government, are in part responsible for allowing MSM stories like this to feel necessary or relevant.

No?

I missed the show but it sounds like a real train wreck — too horrific to look at and yet, too horrific to look away from.

Most importantly, that CNN would air this should not come as a shock. We should be long over being shocked to realize all news is agenda driven, and unfortunately, the current popular agenda is one of brazen anti-Semitism, and perhaps made so much worse by its simulatenous pro-Muslim bias.

I missed this "special" from CNN. I figured it would be the biased reporting one can expect from Amanpour.

However, speaking of Al-Jazeera; I was able to actually watch their international channel since it was part of my satellite tv package in Israel.

Its really not that different than what we see from the MSM, CNN, or MSNBC.

Except with fancy English accents.

Well said as usual. Wish that your articles were printed somewhere where more people could read them (other than your blog public) and get educated on the subject.

Actually, the second intifada was Arafat's answer to the Camp David Accords. His way of saying no to all negotiations after Barak offered the terrorist leader 96% of everything, including dividing Jerusalem.

And that, Robert, is what we call the money statement.

Barak shocked the world -and Israel- with the magnitude of his offer, and barely survived a no-confidence vote in the Knesset over his proposal.

One of the biggest lies in history, yes...history, is that the second intafada (I refuse to capitalize it) was the result of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

But Arafat had been planning for this horrific assault on Israeli civilians for months, even while he smiled for photo ops at Camp David.

Saudi prince Bandar, who was serving as a delegate told Arafat "if we lose this opportunity sir, it will be a crime against the Palestinians. In fact, it will be a crime against the entire region."

History should NEVER forgive Yasser Arafat. Never. To call the man a petty thug would be a compliment. He took an offer whose generosity was stunning, and turned it down without offering a single counterproposal.

97% of the West Bank. The Temple Mount under an Islamic flag. Autonomy for Arabs in the Israeli occupied territory. The right of refugees to return to the new Palestinian state. Complete freedom from all of the Jewish oppression and occupation and all of the other so-called crimes against the Palestinians that the world screamed about....

And Arafat simply walked away.

It was a crime against humanity.

I concluded my college senior thesis on this very topic with the the following statement: Individuals may have had trouble remembering Arafat’s crimes against the Israelis and his own people, but history never forgets.

Robert - Thanks for watching this so I didn't have to. All of your minions should distribute this commentary.
The whole thing is so supra-natural - that CNN would promote the hell out of this thing, even push Larry King up an hour and turn his show into a pre-game show for the special. Someone(s) in high positions is obcessed with the Jooz far beyond any prudent business sensibilities.

PS: Nice literary construct with Al Jazeera. Parallels our President's fake handoff this morning making people think he was talking about Iraq when he was talking about 1941 Japan.

well, apprently, Christiane Amanpour is an Iranian-American grew up in Tehran.

Christiane Amanpour has had a problem with presenting balanced reports for a long time.

How was part two?

I watched the show last night (I had tivo'd it, so I was day behind) and I couldn't believe how ridiculous the whole thing was.

To create a two hour special on Jewish terrorists is ridiculous, but even more so is to run it side by side with a two hour special on Muslim terrorists. It would take weeks of 24 hour programming to even scrape the surface of Islamofacism/terrorism.

The whole thing is so misleading, I can barely stand it.

For what it's worth- I was extremely impressed with Karen's cousin and her cousin's husband. What an incredible couple, no amount of shoddy reporting could hide that fact.

Robert,
It's like I said before, this is one of those shows where the review is more entertaining and informative than the show itself. And in the case of Part 2, you can say the same about the reader's comments.

What puzzles me is that she (Amanwhore) is (or was) married to Jamie Rubin, and is he not a Jew? How can he tolerate her peddling such crock & schlock?

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/08/22/christiane-amanwhoreshit-piece-on-the-jews/

I enjoyed your assessment of the CNN special, sprinkled slightly with humor. I was shocked when I watched the first segment of this special. I wasn't surprised at Amanpour's involvement as I've had her pegged for a while, but more surprised that CNN would permit such vile to be aired. The far left will praise the show for its "informative content", however, those that know better will see it for what it really is. I hope!

Linked here from www.debbieschlussel.com Debbie is one of my fav blogs along with www.hotair.com and www.sweetness-light.com

I really liked your analysis of Linebacker Lady and her slanted reality report. I gave up on CNN long ago so appreciate your review.

You are now in my bookmarks.

I have not watched CNN in years and now I remember why? Thank God for Fox News and the Internet. When was the last time Jews walked into an Arab store and exploded themselves?

Way back in January, David Wilder of Hebron had it right. See my post. We tried to limit CNN's ability to reach people who would be demonized but too often, the power of getting on TV is overcoming.

Yisrael Medad, Shiloh

So much for the IJC, the worldwide International Jewish Conspiracy that, if it ever existsed, did so on behalf of half-assed FDR Marxism.

Nowadays, the IJC has a softer face. The mildly retarded faces of Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, who wouldn't know a Moslem if he bit them on the dick.

Jews, if you ever did run the world media, which you never did, could you please come back and save us from ourselves?

If I get it correctly Annanpour taped one interview with people then sliced it and diced it and edited it till she got what she wanted which would seem to be Truth converted to a Lie but masquerading as Truth. Come Ms. Annanpour, a Lie is a Lie is a Lie.

Ugh. The whole series stank. Never a word about the pro-ARAB lobby (including lefty churches, Big Oil, etc), no Nice Jews to balance out the nice Muslims they showed.

Just a typical week for Completely Narrow-minded & Nasty

Everyone:

I usually answer all comments individually. I try, oh how I try. But I fell behind on this particular blog because I was busy watching and writing up the remaining two parts of the series, answering comments, and then well, fell behind on this thread.

Anywhoo!

Thanks so much for all the wonderful feedback. I'm still recovering from watching all six hours.

Mr. Avrech, WOW, CAN YOU WRITE! Your satire is amazing. Thank you for helping me (through satire) get through a gut-wrenching experience.
One of your writers just above noted that there was nothing on al-CNN about the Arab lobby/money, etc., either. The bit about Jooz wearing die-monds was to...die for. From apoplexy! I caught that one when watching too. All I could think of at that moment was something Louis Farrakhan had said about "That's why they call it JEW-el-ry." Slimy enough to make one shudder.
I also noticed that she said not a word about the Hebron Massacre of 1929 with all her unctuous ranting about Jooz (brave enough) to live there. (I like your use of "Jooz" too.) That lie by omission, Mr. Avrech and Friends, I thought was her biggest lie during her references to Hebron.
Last, I love your descriptions of her, hair, shoulders, etc. LOL! Thanks!

I know Robert Avrech only tangentially, having heard him speak on occasion as well as have exchanged a few e-mails with him. Please let me take this opportunity to say what a genuinely nice man he is, and such a courageous man. He is only one of a tiny handful of writers in Hollywood who is both an Orthodox Jew and unabashedly pro-Israel. In today's politically correct climate, that takes a lot of guts. As far as the content of his article, what can I possibly add to such a perceptive article? I will say that there is a very sad undertone to it; I am sure this is partly based on the terrible loss of Mr Avrech's son, and partly based on the reality that being a Jew makes one the most exalted on Earth in G-d's eyes, but held most in contempt in the eyes of mankind. Still, better to be a member of G-d's Chosen People, than to have the kind of thinking that leads to islamofascism and other forms of terrible evil.

Mrs. Christiane Rubin forgot to mention Arab terrorism against the Jews of 'palestine' which began in the 1920's and continues until this very day.

From the 1920's up to 1948, thousands of Jews, men, women, children (all civilians as there was no IDF then) were massacred & maimed by Arab terrorists. Arab terrorism has never stopped, but it reached its highest peak the moment the ink dried on the Oslo 'peace' treaty and Arafat and his barbaric hordes were allowed into Israel from Tunisia to be legitimized globally - and armed by the Rabin/Peres 'peace' government to
"fight terrorism!"

Madam Rubin forgot to mention that the moment Adolph Arafat, Oslo "peace" Prize laureate, was brought into Israel (not 'back' as he is not a
'palestinian' Arab but an Egyptian one) in 1994 by the arch-ApPeaceniks Peres, Rabin & Beilin, the so-called intifada started and circa 1000 Israelis were killed & thousands more were injured in hundreds of terror attacks (mainly homicide-bombings)between 1994 - 2000. This was before Sharon became prime minister and paid an official visit to the Temple mount. True, after the visit in 2000 the terror intensified and another 1000 or more Israelis died and thousand more were wounded.

This is why Sharon decided to build the security wall/fence, and at least in that he made the right decision. The wall, together with harsher security measures, succeeded in a massive reduction of terror attacks and anyone who spouts off against the Security Wall/Fence, Checkpoints and these harsher security measures, obviously supports terror attacks against Israelis, for without those measures, there the numbers of the slaughtered would be horrific.

Why do people try to erase the memory of those thousands of pre-Temple Mount-Visit Victims of Arab Terror by plugging that Arafat's Oslo Peace-Process Terror Campaign began in 2000 and not in 1994?

As for Mrs. Rubin, she is probably rarin' to get a job with anti-semitic/anti-Israel fascist-Islamic Al Jazeera as her wages would probably be much, much more than what she is now earning at the equally anti-semitic/anti-Israel fascist-leftist CNN network.

Frankly it is sickening to hear the apologists for Christiane Amanpour's distorted reporting on Israel/the Jews.

For someone who is supposed to be objective it appears that she went out of her way to try and portray moral equivalency between the terroriam that Jews and Israel have been subjected to and the isolated, and certainly not condoned, violance of a few isolated Jews.

It is not surprising that it was aired on CNN as, since the time the anti-Semite Turner founded CNN, CNN has never been particuarly sympathetic to the situation. OK, so Wolf Blitzer, who comes from the Jewish media, brings some balance to the picture BUT Amanpour carries such prestige, undeserved as it may be, that it is hard to correct the image as she portrayed it.

I saw the CNN God's Jewish Warriors presented/created by the charlatan Christian Amanpour. It reeks of half-truths and outright lies a la Josef Goebbels, revealing a distinct style one has come to expect from "marble mouth" Amanpour (she sometimes talks like she's stuffed a fistful of marbles into her mouth).

In reality, Amanpour's Jewish Warrior's largely comprise of peaceful Jews who want to be left alone, and, be taken seriously by the Muslim terrorists! Could one imagine the Syrian police foiling Hizbollah terrorists in the same manner in which the Israeli police arrested the Jewish miscreants who planned on blowing up an Arab girl's school ?

Amanpour personifies and represents a very disturbing trend where charlatans masquerade as genuine analysts and scholars!

The fact is that CNN did not report anything that was not true.
According to the whole world, including Israel, the West Bank is occupied land.
And according to all right thinking people, occupation is wrong and should be confronted.
Am I missing something here?

Noble Victor:

You are missing quite a bit.

This from CAMERA:

CNN's "God's Warriors," hosted by Christiane Amanpour, is a three-part series intended to examine the growing role of religious fundamentalism in today's world. Unfortunately, the first program in the series, "God's Jewish Warriors," is one of the most grossly distorted programs to appear on mainstream American television in many years. It is false in its basic premise, established in the opening scene in which Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency is equated with that of Muslims heard endorsing "martyrdom," or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe, either in numbers of perpetrators engaged or in the magnitude of death and destruction wrought.

While in reality Jewish "terrorism" is virtually non-existent, the program magnifies at length the few instances of violence or attempted violence by religiously-motivated Jewish individuals - including having to go all the way back to 1980, for example, to explore a bombing campaign against West Bank Arab mayors by a small group of Israeli Jews. In dredging up such an old incident Amanpour unintentionally undermines her own thesis.

And, of course, on the exceedingly rare occasions when Israeli Jews commit terrorist acts, the Israeli public and leadership condemns the act and the perpetrators. Prime Minister Rabin, for example, condemned Baruch Goldstein's terrorist attack in Hebron, terming it "a loathsome, criminal act of murder." In contrast, Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israelis are regarded as "martyrs" and become celebrities, with soccer tournaments named after them. Amanpour, of course, fails to inform her audience of this key difference.

Of much more interest to Amanpour are settlements, which are a key focus of the program, their residents and adherents being deemed "God's warriors" – along with those Americans, Jewish and Christian alike, who support them. American presidents and Members of Congress are said to be held hostage to the so-called "Israel Lobby," ostensibly dark forces consisting of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups who supposedly enable the nefarious expansion of West Bank communities.

Disproportionate reliance on partisan voices, some extreme figures, skews the message dramatically. Jimmy Carter and John Mearsheimer, chief proponents of the discredited canards about Jews subverting American national interests to those of Israel, are repeatedly and respectfully interviewed. Carter, for example, claims that no American politician could survive politically while calling for settlement-related aid cuts to Israel: "There's no way that a member of Congress would ever vote for that and hope to be re-elected."

That would be news to politicians like Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, who has long been a critic of aid to Israel and opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1992. As well, contrary to Amanpour and Carter, Representatives James Trafficante, Dana Rohrabacher, Nick Smith, Fortney Pete Stark, Neil Abercrombie, David E. Bonior, John Conyers Jr, John D. Dingell, Earl F. Hilliard, Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Barbara Lee, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Jim Moran, David R. Obey, Ron Paul and Nick J. Rahall II, have voted against aid to Israel and/or opposed other resolutions favoring Israel.

Amanpour ignores all this, and turns instead to former Senator Charles Percy, who joins in denouncing Jewish political influence. Only Morris Amitay is presented as balance on this critical issue.

Whether wittingly or not, Amanpour's program, with its reliance on pejorative labeling, generalities, testimonials, and a stacked lineup of guests, is a perfect illustration of classical propaganda techniques. Unfortunately propaganda is the opposite of journalism, the profession Amanpour is supposed to practice.

The program was misleading and inaccurate in many other ways as well:

Land:

Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank - it's west of the Jordan River - was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state."

This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.

Settlements:

• Amanpour suggests settlements are the cause of Arab anger: "the Jewish settlements have inflamed much of the Arab world," yet the Arab world was just as anti-Israel (actually more so) before the settlements were built.

• She presents at length the views of Theodor Meron asserting the illegality of settlements as the definitive word, but makes no mention of more senior Israeli experts such as former Supreme Court Chief Meir Shamgar, who disagreed with Meron. Nor does Amanpour mention such foreign experts such as Professors Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow who also argued for the legality of settlements. (See for example CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements and From "Occupied Territories" to "Disputed Territories" by Dore Gold.)

• She grossly misleads about America's position on settlements in the following sequence:

WILLIAM SCRANTON, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N. UNDER GERALD FORD: My government believes that international law sets the appropriate standards.

AMANPOUR: From the earliest days of the settler movement, even the United States, Israel's closest ally, blasted Israel's settlement policy.

SCRANTON: Substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal.

AMANPOUR: Ever since American presidents both Democrat and Republican have spoken from virtually the same script. They consistently oppose settlement growth.

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER PRESIDENT: The United States will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements.

In fact, while the Carter administration did deem settlements illegal, President Reagan very much did not speak from the "same script." He explained: "As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements there — I disagreed when the previous Administration referred to them as illegal, they're not illegal" (NYTimes, Feb. 3, 1981). Other presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, also did not term settlements "illegal."

• Amanpour does not discuss Jewish habitation in the West Bank and Gaza in post-Biblical times, before 1948—for example, in Hebron, Kfar Etzion, Kfar Darom (See: CAMERA BACKGROUNDER: The Debate About Settlements) but instead portrays Jewish settlement in the West Bank as an encroachment on "Arab" land—repeatedly referring to disputed territories as "Arab" or "occupied" land (22 times throughout the program).

• Amanpour continuously discounts the context of the Arab world. She says with regard to the post Six-Day War period: "But the Israeli government was divided - trade the captured land for peace or keep it and build Jewish settlements." Unmentioned is the Arab refusal after the Six-Day War to "trade" anything for peace, as embodied in the three "no's" delivered by Arab leaders at a summit in Khartoum in September 1967, declaring there would be no negotiation, no recognition and no peace with Israel.

Jerusalem/Temple Mount, and The Holy Places:

• Amanpour says: "It was from here, according to Muslim scripture, that the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven around the year 630. But Hebrew scripture puts the ancient Jewish Temple in the same location, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70. For the next 1,900 years, even the last remnant of the temple known as the Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, was lost to the Jews."

a) Muslim scripture refers to Mohammed ascending to heaven from the "farthest mosque," which could not have been on the Temple Mount, since the mosque there wasn't built until well after the death of Mohammed.
b) The Western Wall is part of the Temple Mount complex—not the actual Temple. It is a remnant of the retaining wall built to extend and flatten the Temple Mount. There are indeed actual remains of the First and Second Temples on the Temple Mount.
c) Although Amanpour notes the holiness of the Temple Mount to Jews and Muslims, and some Jews in clips say that it is the holiest site for Jews, she never points this out herself, nor does she mention that Hebron is Judaism's second holiest city with its second holiest shrine.
d) Amanpour interviews the Muslim Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to give a Muslim perspective on the Al Aqsa Mosque, but no Jewish Rabbinical figure is presented to discuss the paramount religious importance of the Temple Mount to Jews.

• Amanpour ignores the devastation of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the expulsion of its residents by the Jordanians in 1948, as she does the Jordanian destruction and desecration of synagogues and cemeteries in eastern Jerusalem .Nor does she discuss the denial of Jewish access to holy sites and restriction of Christian religious freedom after Jordan’s illegal annexation of eastern Jerusalem in 1950. Instead she redefines the history of the conflict over Jerusalem with a new timeline, alleging, "the 40-year tug of war over Jerusalem began when Israel bulldozed the Arab neighborhood next to the Western Wall and built a plaza where Jews now pray."

Carter and Mearsheimer:

Amanpour states: " Most recently, former President Carter was criticized for criticizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. In his book, "Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid."

Carter was, of course, "criticized" for purveying multiple false statements about Israel and the Palestinians. See, for example, A Comprehensive Collection of Jimmy Carter's Errors.

Professor John Mearsheimer is also invited on to explain to viewers the allegedly pernicious effects of the "Jewish Lobby," with no mention by Amanpour of the extremely serious flaws that critics have identified in Mearsheimer's work.

Israel Lobby:

• Amanpour also grossly misleads the public about a dispute in the early 1990s between then president George Bush and Israel's prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Shamir. President Bush decided to withhold American loan guarantees to Israel unless that country froze settlement activity. In CNN's version of events, the Israel lobby kicked into gear, and "Congress got the message." (For Amanpour, it seems, it is a given that members of Congress were responding to "the message" sent by the lobby as opposed to acting on their own convictions.) Then, "just a few months later, the very week of the Republican National Convention, the pro-Israel lobby had something to celebrate." President Bush announced his support for the loan guarantees. Clearly, according to Amanpour, the lobby forced Bush's hand.

What is absent from Amanpour's version of events is the reason why the Bush administration eventually reversed its position. A new Israeli government, willing to compromise on the issue of settlements, had come to power. The new prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, backed down from previous Israeli Prime Minister Shamir's positions by promising to curtail settlement growth. Israeli-American relations subsequently improved.

• In addition, Amanpour uses inflammatory language unbecoming of a journalist to describe fundraising efforts by American Jews to help Israeli settlers. Not only does she take sides in the dispute over the legality of the settlements, she evokes negative stereotypes, stating:

Six thousand miles from Israel's settlements, in the heart of Manhattan, defiance of international law comes dressed in diamonds.

Muslim "Anger":

Interviewed by Amanpour, Gershom Gorenberg states: "You can't understand the anger of radical Islam unless you understand the conflict between you know, the Jews and the Palestinians." The false implication is that such "anger" is primarily rooted in the Israeli-Palestinian issue, disregarding the far greater forces driving radical Islam, including the titanic struggle between Shiites and Sunnis triggered in large measure by the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, the Khomenist revolution and the expansion of Saudi Wahabism, Saudi-sponsored mosques and schools built all over the globe inculcate vast numbers of Muslims with extreme, supremacist views.

As even the Ayatollah Khomeini put it, the United States was the "Great Satan," while Israel was only the "Small Satan."

And of course, the rise of the Internet and satellite TV has greatly amplified the false and misleading information put out by Muslim supremacist propagandists, inflaming the Muslim masses.