Israel Left To Bell The Cat? Carter Looking LIke Patton?

How do you take an option off a table that never existed? This is not the shot heard round the world but a whimper from an administration whose left hand and right hand remain un-coordinated.

Dis-information, I thought, was a technique used to confuse your adversary. In this administration it seems to be a consequence of our own confusion.

Is Israel left to 'bell the cat.'(See 1 below.)
---
Is Israel willing to pull Obama's chestnuts out of the fire to avoid another war and if so can Obama be trusted? How far will/should Netanyahu go to buy the semblance of peace with Obama?

If Obama continues to demand the impossible from Netanyahu then the next war will be hard to avoid because the rift between Israel and America will create a vacuum which Iran will gladly fill.

And, if Obama's knees continue to weaken over Iran, Obama will have accomplished the impossible - he will make Jimmy Carter look like Patton. (See 2 and 2a below.)
---
Ron Lauder was a college classmate of mine. He continues spraying Obama with unpleasant words rather than with his mother's sweet smelling perfume. (See 3 below.)
---
The behind the scene person shaping public opinion for Obama with respect to the image of Muslims.

Years ago I attended a counter terrorist meeting. Ellen Cannon PHD was the speaker. Ellen explained how radical American Muslims would eventually bore their way into our society using the freedoms granted American citizens. She spoke about how they would eventually put up candidates running for school board positions, how their various charitable organizations would funnel money to radical Islamists.

What Ellen failed to speak about is how an American president would be their conduit and/or carrier pigeon. But that was then and that was over 10 years ago.

Ironically Ellen teaches, consults and lives in Chicago.(See 4 below.)
---
Dick

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)US gives up military option, non-UN sanctions against Iran

US deputy defense secretary Michele Flournoy said Wednesday, April 21: "The US has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon." This is the first time a senior administration official has publicly admitted that America has dropped its military option against Iran. Instead, said Flournoy, the US is hoping that "negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons."

Addressing a news conference in Singapore, she said clearly: "Military force is an option of last resort, it's off the table in the near term."

A few hours later, the Pentagon spokesman denied that a military strike against Iran was off the table, indicating confusion and polarization at the top of the Obama administration on its Iran policy.

Military sources report Flournoy's statement contradicts every public assertion by president Barack Obama, defense secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the joint Chiefs of staff Adm. Mike Mullen, all of whom have insisted that all options are on the table if Iran fails to curb its current nuclear activities. Deputy Secretary Flournoy is regarded as a senior, serious and responsible Pentagon official who is too experienced to go out on a limb with a key policy statement to reporters without the highest authority.

The policy reversal amounts to a beckoning finger at America's open door for Iran to return to the negotiating table.

Monday and Tuesday, April 19-20, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced his government is willing to go back to talks with the United States and other powers on a deal for its enriched uranium. Turkey has offered its services as broker between Washington and Tehran.

But if anything, Iran's position on its nuclear program has hardened since the first round of negotiations ended in nothing, and the next round is likely to waste more precious months and end the same way. Tehran's only object in seeking to discuss an agreed outcome for the nuclear controversy is to buy time and push away Washington's drive for tough sanctions. This the Iranians have now achieved.

Fourney's statement that the United States is counting on UN sanctions to deter Iran likewise plays into Tehran's hands, because it removes the second bludgeon hanging over Iran's heads, that of US penalties outside the world body. This is the only remaining option since most of the informed sources quoted by US media in the past week view the administration's hopes of Russia and China coming around to tough UN sanctions as non-starters.

This wholesale US retreat on Iran leaves Israel as the only country still holding to a military option for putting the brakes on Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb.
However, Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel's political and military leaders are divided on the wisdom of executing this option and attacking Iran without US support.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Israel, U.S. secretly working to bridge gaps in peace process
By Barak Ravid

Israel and the United States have conducted behind-the-scenes negotiations in recent days in an effort to find a formula that would bridge their differences over peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and America's demand that Israel halt construction in East Jerusalem for at least four months.

According to a senior Obama administration official, the top Middle East policy specialist at the White House, Dan Shapiro, arrived in Israel yesterday on a secret visit. Shapiro's delegation also included David Hale, who serves as deputy to U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell and is permanently based in Israel.

Shapiro and Hale held lengthy talks yesterday at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office in Jerusalem with the prime minister's envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, and Netanyahu adviser Ron Dermer. The talks will continue today.


Neither the White House nor the Prime Minister's Office have officially announced the talks or even Shapiro's arrival in Israel. Officially, total silence is being maintained, and the Prime Minister's Office therefore refused to comment yesterday.

But a senior Israeli official said talks with American officials have been conducted throughout the past week - by phone, via the Israeli embassy in Washington and with the White House officials who arrived in Israel yesterday. The Israeli source said Israel would not provide an official response to the American demands in the form of a position paper or even a verbal response, but the parties would try to reach an understanding on a joint approach for furthering the peace process.

This will be a lengthy process, the official added, and there will be no single "event" at which Israel will present its response.

Currently, the Israeli official said, Netanyahu's position is that Israel will not accede to Washington's demand that it suspend construction in Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. However, diplomatic sources predicted that Netanyahu would agree to promise to avoid provocative steps such as constructing houses for Jews in Arab neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city.

The dialogue between Israel and the Obama administration is to continue next week, when Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Washington. Barak, who will leave for the U.S. on Sunday, is slated to deliver a speech at a conference sponsored by the American Jewish Committee, at which U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will also speak.

He will also hold meetings with U.S. National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones, Clinton and other senior officials. The talks will deal with the peace process and the effort to bridge the disagreements between the U.S. and Israel, as well as the Iranian nuclear issue and weapons smuggling from Syria to Lebanon.

When Netanyahu visited Washington several weeks ago, U.S. President Barack Obama gave him a list of demands during their White House meeting. One of the demands was a construction freeze in East Jerusalem. Obama also demanded that Netanyahu make other confidence-building gestures to the Palestinians, such as allowing the opening of PA institutions in the eastern part of the city, transferring additional West Bank territory to Palestinian security control and agreeing to discuss all the core issues of the conflict during proximity talks with the PA, instead of insisting that these issues only be discussed in direct talks.


2a)Obama must stop demanding the impossible from Israel
By Ari Shavit


Will war break out in the summer? In Israel, people still want to believe that the powers stabilizing the Middle East are stronger than the powers destabilizing it. They believe in the ostensible deterrence achieved in the north and south during the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead. However, Jordan's King Abdullah is not the only one warning about war in the summer. Other international figures who know the region well fear a sudden military escalation. We can't know when the next war will break out, they say. We also can't know where, but the Middle East has become a powder keg. Between the summers of 2010 and 2011, that keg can catch fire.

The main war scenario is that of a conflict with Iran. If next year the United States or Israel uses force against Iran, Iran will strike back. The Iranian attack will be both direct and indirect. The indirect strike will be by Hezbollah. When Israel responds, Syria might not stand idly by. War between Israel, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah will not resemble any war we have known in the past. Hundreds of missiles will land on Tel Aviv. Thousands of people will be killed. Hundreds of missiles will hit air force bases and Israel Defense Forces command centers. Hundreds of soldiers will be killed. The crushing Israeli counterstrike will demolish Beirut and Damascus. Israel will win, but the victory will be painful and costly.

The second war scenario is that of a reconciliation with Iran. If next year U.S. President Barack Obama acts toward Iran the way George W. Bush acted toward North Korea, Iran will go nuclear. If Obama prevents Israel from acting against Iran and does not act itself, Iran will become a leading power in the Middle East. The outcome will be a loss of respect in the Sunni world for the United States and a loss of inhibitions in the Shi'ite and radical world vis-a-vis Israel. A serious conflict could then break out between Israel and Hamas, Israel and Hezbollah and perhaps even Israel and Syria. A violent deterioration could also occur between Israel and other neighbors.

A loss of U.S. strategic hegemony would mean that opponents of the West will shake up the Middle East. A loss of Israel's strategic monopoly would result in attacks on it by old and new enemies. The age of relative quiet that has typified Israeli-Arab relations for the past 35 years will be over forever.

The conclusion is clear: The essential task now in the Middle East is the prevention of war. That's not the same as pursuing peace. Sometimes it's precisely the attempt to achieve an unattainable peace that ignites a war. In the current sensitive situation, there must be no illusions and no mistakes. Political correctness must not be allowed to cause a historic disaster. And when the glasses of political correctness are taken off, a clear picture emerges. To prevent war in the Middle East, the United States and Israel must show strength and generosity, deterrence and moderation. Together they must promote a cautious and gradual diplomatic process that will weaken the region's extremists, strengthen its moderates and curb Iran. They must maintain the democratic alliance that has stabilized western Asia for two generations.

The main responsibility now rests with the United States. The Netanyahu government has made many mistakes over the past year, but so has the Obama administration. The latter has wasted 15 precious months in dialogue with Iran without imposing any sanctions and maintaining the illusion of an immediate Israeli-Palestinian peace. The open, unilateral pressure Washington has exerted on Jerusalem has both distanced peace and brought war closer. Therefore, if the Obama administration does not want the next war to be named after it, it must urgently change its policies. It must demand the possible from Israel, not the imaginary. It must demand what is essential from Iran. It must show determined and sober leadership that will prevent war now and lead to peace tomorrow.

The volcano that erupted last week in Iceland will be nothing compared to the volcano that could erupt in the near future in the Middle East. But the volcano here is a human one. People are stoking it and people can also cool it down. The lives of hundreds of millions now depend on the wisdom and careful consideration of one man: Barack Obama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Words: Round 2: Lauder vs. Obama


Netanyahu's close associate Ron Lauder again publicly criticizes American president, says US policies toward Israel are 'disproportionate'


A week after publishing an open letter in which he criticized US President Barack Obama, Ron Lauder on Wednesday continued to slam the American president and his Middle East policies.


In an interview with the German Der Spiegel, Lauder - who serves as president of the World Jewish Congress and is considered a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - said that Washington's criticism of Israel was "disproportionate."

First Round

Lauder to Obama: Palestinians to blame.

In open letter to American president, head of WJC Ron Lauder expresses concern over US-Israel rift, says Palestinians refuse to negotiate; letter calls on Obama to quit public criticism of Jewish state.


"The Obama administration is blaming Israel for the stalling peace process, but it is in fact the Palestinians which are opposed to negotiations," he said.

When asked whether the Israeli government can also be blamed for the recent deterioration between the two countries, following its announcement of a plan to build 1,600 new housing units in east Jerusalem during US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel, Lauder noted the "bad timing."


However, he said that the Israeli government has made extraordinary concessions: "It has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state, a moratorium on settlement building, and it has removed over a hundred roadblocks in the West Bank."


Lauder stressed that despite his close relationship with the prime minister, he does not act as his spokesman.

"I don't represent my friend, but Jews worldwide. I would have written the same letter if someone else were prime minister in Jerusalem. Over his attempts to engage the Muslim world, Obama has strongly neglected the relationship with Israel," he said.

During the interview, Lauder rejected claims that the conflict in the Middle East was harming American national security and said that Washington's "main concern should be Iran. The regime in Tehran is threatening Israel and the entire Western world with its plans to build a nuclear bomb. That is why Obama should end his feud with Israel."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Meet the pollster who works behind the scenes with radical Islamist groups to enhance their standing in the presidential council's activities
By Steven Emerson


Few American Islamists receive the kind of glowing media coverage given to Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, who is sometimes described as the "most influential person" shaping the Obama Administration's Middle East message.

Mogahed, who claims to have played an important role in the drafting of President Obama's historic Cairo speech to the Muslim world, was appointed to serve on the President's Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council released its final recommendations last month.

When European Islamist Tariq Ramadan kicked off his U.S. tour earlier this month at Cooper Union in New York City, Mogahed and two journalists joined him for a panel discussion. Her remarks emphasized polling data showing that Muslim Americans are more affluent and socially content than their European counterparts.

Muslim Americans are no more likely to support political violence than the rest of the nation, Mogahed said. The minority of Muslim Americans who do support attacks on civilians base this position on politics, not religion.

It's a message that Mogahed attempts to drive home at every opportunity.

She routinely is depicted as a scholarly analyst monitoring public opinion on subjects like anti-Muslim prejudice in the United States or global Muslim attitudes toward America. On other occasions, she is treated as a pioneering Muslim celebrity or portrayed as a victim of anti-Muslim "smears."

But the reality is much more complicated. Mogahed is not some apolitical social scientist chronicling political trends in the manner of George Gallup, founder of the parent organization for her polling center. While Gallup strived to maintain his objectivity, Mogahed has followed a very different course. As we will explain in more detail below, she works behind the scenes with radical Islamist groups to enhance their standing in the presidential council's activities.

Mogahed is a protege of John Esposito, executive director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a longstanding apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. The pair have worked together at the Gallup Center, and co-authored the book Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think in 2007, which was subsequently turned into a film. Read the State Department website's coverage of the film premiere here.

Mogahed has been a tenacious defender of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. During a September 2008 appearance at the Religion Newswriters Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., she was asked about links between the two organizations and Islamic radicals. Mogahed replied that it would be unfair to have those groups "disenfranchised" because of "misinformation." Without offering evidence, she claimed "there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt."

In CAIR's case, that "witch hunt" is rooted in the halls of the same government Mogahed now advises. It is the FBI's judgment, based upon evidence admitted in court in a Hamas-financing trial, that CAIR is a Hamas front and not "an appropriate liaison partner." Those Hamas connections appear to be the focus of an ongoing grand jury investigation into CAIR.

ISNA, like CAIR, was an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-financing trial. Exhibits from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) trial showed that the North American Islamic Trust, an ISNA subsidiary, paid $30,000 to senior Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzouk and his wife, along with another $30,000 to the Islamic University of Gaza, a school long known to be controlled by Hamas. Five former HLF officials were found guilty of illegally routing more than $12 million to Hamas.

When the White House announced Mogahed's appointment in April, her selection was warmly welcomed by CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad:

"Congratulations to Ms. Mogahed on this well-deserved appointment. Her knowledge and expertise will be an asset to this important council. The American Muslim community can feel confident that she will be a balanced and valuable resource on the vital issues the council must address."

Outreach to Islamists from White House

Since joining the White House council, Mogahed has worked quietly to ensure that CAIR and ISNA are active participants in its work. And she has reached out to radical Muslim groups like the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) as well.

Viewed in isolation, these efforts may seem innocuous. But that line of reasoning ignores the harm that stems from such policies, which permit radical Islamist groups to ensconce themselves as the sole representatives of the larger Muslim community -- to the exclusion of Muslims with alternative views.

Zuhdi Jasser, head of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), says Mogahed's collaboration with CAIR, ISNA and other like-minded groups is harmful to Muslims seeking to provide a non-radical alternative for their co-religionists.

"The damage is immeasurable," he told the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Muslims "are going to say, 'Why bother?' "The government has chosen sides in the conflict."

Last May, Mogahed addressed the 34th convention of ICNA, an organization with long history of glorifying jihadist terror and radicalism. The conference was cosponsored by MAS, an organization founded as the U.S. chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood, which has provided the ideological underpinnings for virtually all modern Islamic terrorist groups.

In early July, Mogahed worked behind the scenes before ISNA's 2009 convention to tape promotional videos for the White House faith-based initiative. She sent a letter to ISNA officials urging them to pass on "My informational letter to the Muslim American Community about the President's summer of service initiative," along with "The one pager from the White House about the initiative."

MPAC, which has a long record of engaging in hate speech and defending terrorists, posted a letter from Mogahed to Muslim "leaders" on its website urging them to participate in United We Serve by "telling the world what you've done." In September, MPAC boasted that it was invited to a Pentagon iftar (fast-breaking dinner) keynoted by Mogahed. Islamic Relief USA, a charitable organization backed by CAIR and other radical groups, boasted that Mogahed attended its community iftar along with officials from Agriculture Department, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Institute of Peace. Also in attendance were representatives of CAIR, ISNA, MAS and MPAC.

Muslimserve's final report contains on its second page an introductory message from Mogahed thanking CAIR, MPAC, ISNA and Islamic Relief among others for their work on the project.

Page three shows the logos of those groups, along with ICNA, the Muslim Students Association, Life for Relief & Development and the Mosque Foundation, a Bridgeview, Illinois mosque with a long history of support for radical Islamists.

Page four consists of a letter from President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama touting the administration's efforts to encourage volunteerism.

The remaining 48 pages consist of free publicity for these organizations - articles, charts and pictures explaining various projects carried out by these and other groups under Muslimserve's auspices. In October, Awad announced that Mogahed and Imam Siraj Wahhaj would be featured speakers at CAIR's 15th annual banquet. After a brief firestorm of controversy, Mogahed withdrew from the CAIR banquet on grounds that speaking there would violate "longstanding" Gallup policy against speaking to advocacy organizations.

Rationalizing Jihad, Covering for Islamists

When it comes to Muslims and jihad, Mogahed has two major themes: that only a small percentage of Muslims are radicalized, and that any radicalism that does exist results from perceptions that the West is "hostile" to Muslims, as demonstrated by support for Israel, the war in Iraq, or a tough stance against Iran's nuclear weapons efforts.

In her July 4, 2009 speech to the ISNA convention, Mogahed cited polling data from Who Speaks for Islam? In the book, Esposito and Mogahed claimed that just 7 percent of Muslims worldwide were "politically radicalized." In her ISNA speech, Mogahed defined this 7 percent as Muslims "who said 9/11 was completely justified."

Her polling found that many of the Muslims who condemned 9/11 said their moral objection was "rooted… in their religious beliefs," she said. But none of the 7 percent who said the attacks were justified "quoted the Quran to justify that view." Mogahed said "this empirical evidence completely turns on its head the common assumptions that were driving our interventions and our policies that meant to secure our country" may have "actually made things worse rather than better."

Mogahed portrayed the supporters of suicide terror as frustrated seekers of freedom and democracy who felt culturally and militarily "threatened" by the West. She said her polling data showed that those "who sympathize with terrorism don't hate our freedom; they actually want our freedom."

What distinguishes this group from other Muslims is "their sense of threat." These supporters of terror "believe more than do the mainstream that their society, their faith and their way of life is threatened, militarily threatened and in some ways even culturally threatened by the West," she continued. "They're more likely to believe that there is a war against their faith. They are also more likely to say that moving toward greater democracy will help Muslims' progress."

"Aren't you glad that Dalia is advising the President of the United States?" effused moderator Aakif Ahmad at the conclusion of Mogahed's remarks. Ahmad informed the ISNA audience that Esposito "personally" gave a copy of the book to President Obama when he spoke in Turkey and asked him to look at it prior to his June speech in Cairo.

"So, [Obama] is well aware of the information that's in this book," Ahmad said. "And that's amazing to know where we've come in the last few years."

Semantic Games and Questionable Numbers

Mogahed denies any connection between radical Islam and terrorism. Speaking to the Religion Newswriters Association in September 2008, she said that "'Islamic terrorism' is really a contradiction in terms" to mainstream Muslims "because terrorism is not Islamic by definition." As for the countless terrorist attacks that are committed in the name of Islam, Mogahed suggested that the linkage was ridiculous: "My response to that is, you know, Cuba calls itself a democracy, but that's not what we call it."

Mogahed told the journalists that the very act of mentioning jihadist violence is "counterproductive" and a "gift" to terrorists. By even raising role of Islam, she said, we permit terrorists to be seen as "legitimate" and "as moral freedom fighters."

In a 2007 speech in Aspen, Colorado, Mogahed said terrorists seek "to exploit broadly felt legitimate grievances" to win new recruits. She also appeared to suggest that the Muslim Brotherhood might be a peaceful alternative to jihadists.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second in command, "wrote a very important book" criticizing the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt for "trying to make change through political means by being inside a corrupt system," Mogahed said.

She suggested the jihadists are trying "to give people hope in a non-diplomatic, nonpolitical way to change things" like forcing the United States out of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. "The only way that I think you can combat this is to empower people who are trying to make the same changes" by "nonviolent means and to show the world that this is possible."

Another recurring theme in Mogahed's narrative is that Muslims feel a profound sense of "humiliation." A "sense of humiliation" is "something felt very strongly among Muslims as a whole," she said in Aspen.

Perhaps her most controversial argument has been that the public in majority-Muslim nations around the world is no more likely to support terrorism than the American public. In her September 2008 speech to the Religion Newswriters Association, Mogahed claimed that polling data shows that "in every society there's a certain percentage of people that thinks targeting civilians is a great idea."

Six percent of the U.S. population, compared with 4 percent in Saudi Arabia, and 2 percent each in Iran and Lebanon and favor "targeting civilians," Mogahed said. "So, it's not sort of a Muslim anomaly, this idea of sympathizing with terrorism. In fact, Muslims are no more likely than anyone to hold this view -- in some cases, slightly less likely."

But critics say the Mogahed/Esposito data is flawed -- in particular by massively undercounting the percentage of Muslims who endorse terror.

In Who Speaks for Islam? , the pair claim that approximately 91 million people, or 7 percent of Muslims worldwide (the percentage who believe the 9/11 attacks were completely justified), can be referred to as "politically radicalized."

One huge problem, as Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy observed in May 2008, is that Mogahed and Esposito appear to have arrived at the 7 percent figure by understating by almost half the percentage of those who believe 9/11 was completely justified. And the pair completely ignored the additional 23.5 percent who believe 9/11 was partially justified.

When Satloff looked at their numbers more closely, he found that the percentage justifying 9/11 was closer to 36 percent, or more than 450 million people. That's about a third of the world's Muslim population.

The Pew Global Attitudes Project surveyed Muslims in the Palestinian territories and 15 countries, asking whether they viewed suicide bombings as "often or sometimes justified." The numbers varied widely - from lows of 8 percent in Egypt and 9 percent in Pakistan to 70 percent in the Palestinian territories. According to the survey, an average of 23.5 percent of Muslims supported suicide bombings in 2007.

Downplaying Brutality of Sharia

Mogahed has repeatedly sought to downplay the often brutal, coercive nature of Islamic law, or sharia. In a 2007 appearance on Link Television (an independent station based in San Francisco), Mogahed said that in virtually every country polled by Gallup, Muslims believe sharia should be "at least a source of legislation."

Interviewer Ray Suarez asked her about the fact that sharia often involves harsh punishments such as stonings, canings and cutting off hands. Mogahed replied that more Muslims associate sharia with "a more just society," "protection of human rights" and "rule of law" than with harsh punishments.

Muslims "primarily" believe sharia is "law that is going to make society more just, and that cannot be co-opted or thrown out at the whim of a despotic leader," she said.

During an October 2009 television interview in Great Britain, Mogahed joined a representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) in touting the purported benefits of sharia to women. HT is an extreme fundamentalist movement that seeks to establish a global Islamic state and expresses support for terrorism.

The program host noted that "the media" raises "issues of oppression, injustice" and "second-class citizenship" regarding sharia. "Why then do you feel that so many women in your survey specifically support sharia as the source of legislation for their countries in the Muslim world?" she asked Mogahed.

Mogahed replied that many Muslim women "associate…gender justice or justice for women with sharia compliance" When the host asked why sharia barred women from becoming heads of state, Nawaz defended the ban by belittling the record of Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto, who was murdered by jihadists. Mogahed failed to rebut this comment.

Mogahed later said she would not have agreed to the interview if she had been aware of Hizb ut-Tahrir's role in the program. She suggested that another member of Hizb ut-Tahrir had "misled us" to score propaganda points.

"I don't regret anything I said" on the broadcast, Mogahed stated. "My regret is that I went on the show."

Some reform-minded Muslims are troubled by Mogahed's perceived influence with President Obama. Yemeni feminist Elham Mane'a objected to the fact that in his June 5 Cairo speech, Obama stated that the United States has litigated cases "to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and punish those who would deny it."

Attributing Obama's statement to Mogahed's influence, Mane'a contended that the wearing of the hijab outside of a Muslim country is a sign of coercion rather than free expression.

Mogahed has not responded to Mane'a's concerns. But judging from her dismissive reaction to criticisms expressed by Aayan Hirsi Ali, Mogahed does not appear terribly sympathetic to women who are oppressed by Islamists.

Ali, a native of Somalia, obtained political asylum in the Netherlands and was elected to Parliament. She renounced Islam and later wrote the screenplay for Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh's film "Submission." After Van Gogh was murdered in 2004, Ali received death threats and went into hiding. She later migrated to the United States.

In her 2008 speech to the Religion Newswriters Association, Mogahed referred to Ali as "everyone's favorite pissed-off victim" and suggested she was part of a "vocal fringe" who believe that "adopting Western values will help their progress."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------