Obama Backs Muslim Brotherhood in Syria says King Abdullah

By Scott W. Winchell (SUA Editor) – It has been clear to those who closely monitor the events unfolding in Syria and the rest of the Middle East and North Africa that the Muslim Brotherhood is quickly securing a hold on the majority of the ‘Arab Spring’ nations. There is no denying it is true and that makes most wonder what the Obama administration is and was really up to. We at SUA have never been fooled.

The constant knell that no one knows who is who in Syria, and the hands-off approach by Obama point to the conclusion that the White House has always wanted the Islamists to win out. They know what we know and have chosen to ignore it. Now we see that even King Abdullah is convinced – Obama is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and always has been.

Of course, here at SUA, through our NGO, the “Syrian Opposition Liaison Group” (SOLG), we have always known who is who on the ground in Syria. Why, because we talk to them directly and have published this for a long time. The point is, the FSA was predominantly nationalistic and moderate – almost secular in its make up and goals from the beginning.

However, all the stalling, hand-wringing, propagandizing, and outright lies have the world still scratching its head on who is who. Why, to keep everyone confused, especially the average American citizen. This works well for Obama and crew because they knew if they waited long enough, the rebels would transform through attrition, starved of arms and equipment, while the Jihadists increasingly gained strength and numbers, through the infusion of Qatari funding.

The fact is though, it is not to late to change this policy, though we doubt they will, and back the real friends of America and the West, the nationalistic and secular moderates in the FSA. Now that Col. Riad el Asaad, the leader of the FSA, a true nationalist who has recently been severely injured, we wonder what is to become of the FSA in the near future with Obama supporting the Muslim Brotherhood with the help of Qatar so openly?

SUA is certain these seemingly disparate points are all connected, you be the judge. Again, we wish Col. Riad el Asaad a quick recovery, and success for the true FSA and the true goals of the average Syrian. If the Obama administration changes its course, the Syrians can then be in control of their own destiny, not controlled by those who promote the Muslim Brotherhood and yet another dictatorship style government.

Jordan’s King: US Backs Muslim Brotherhood in Syria

By Barry Rubin – New Media Journal (Originally posted at PJMedia.com)

“Don’t scare anyone. But once you gain ground then move ahead. You must utilize as many people as possible who may be of use to us.” — Joseph Stalin to future Communist dictator of Hungary Matyas Rakosi, December 5, 1944. It really isn’t hard to understand what is happening in the Middle East if you gather the facts:

Jordan’s King Abdullah — whom President Barack Obama just visited — is clearly telling us what’s going wrong: the Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous, and the United States is supporting it. Presumably, this is what Abdullah told Obama.

President Obama and King Abdullah II of Jordan during Obama’s recent visit to the Middle East.

US policy is now escalating support for a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria, and the Syrian rebels increasingly have open Brotherhood leadership.

Repression is gradually escalating in Egypt, with arrests of moderates, Islamists being sent to the military academy, and many other measures.

Regarding Jordan, Jeffrey Goldberg has written an extremely valuable profile of Abdullah. The Jordanian monarch is telling Western visitors that their countries are making a huge mistake by supporting the Islamists. He complains that the US State Department is ignoring him, and further, that US officials are telling him: “The only way you can have democracy is through the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Abdullah responds: the Brotherhood wants to impose anti-American reactionary governments, and his “major fight” is to stop them. No margin may be left for relative moderate and pro-American states between a Sunni Islamist alliance led by Egypt and including Turkey versus a Shia Islamist alliance led by Iran, says Abdullah. And he’s right. The only differences, Abdullah explains, between the Turkish and Egyptian regimes are their timetables for installing dictatorships.

And Egypt’s new president, says the king, is obsessed with a hostile view of Israel.

(Here’s the delicious irony: Last August, Jordanian Prime Minister Fayez Tarawneh launched a ferocious personal attack on me. Why? Because I said that the Sunni-Shia battle was going to replace the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, his king just concurred with me. LOL.)

Meanwhile, while President Barack Obama was love-bombing Israel during his visit, US policy was helping to install a Muslim Brotherhood supporter as the putative next leader of Syria. Obama’s strategy — with appropriate adjustments to the national scene — is the same as his disastrous policy in Egypt.

The new leader of the Syrian opposition coalition is Ghassan Hitto, an obscure figure who has long been a resident of the United States. His actual election contained two hints:

He only received 35 votes from 63 members of the Syrian National Coalition. That show of support matches the number of Muslim Brotherhood supporters there.

Only 48 out of the 63 even cast a ballot at all, showing lack of enthusiasm and possible US pressure on groups to abstain rather than oppose Hitto.

During the Cold War, American policy toward Third World countries frequently looked for a “third way” democratic alternative — leaders who were neither Communists nor right-wing authoritarians. Today, however, the Obama administration doesn’t do the equivalent at all, despite pretenses to the contrary. Rather, it seeks leadership from the most seemingly moderate people…who represent Islamist groups. Of course, this moderation is largely deceptive.

That was the pattern in Egypt; now it is the same failed strategy in Syria.

Hitto is a typical example of such a person. He has lived in the United States and went to university there, so presumably he knows the West and has become more moderate by living there. He is involved in high-tech enterprises, so supposedly he is a modern type of guy.

Remember how now-dictator of Syria Bashar al-Assad was lavishly praised because he studied and lived in London and was supposedly interested in … the Internet?

In addition, nobody has (yet) uncovered an outrageous Hitto statement. His ties to the Brotherhood are not so blatant — even though they are obvious.

Yet the connections between Hitto and the Muslim Brotherhood — and those are only the ones documented quickly following his election — are extensive:

He is founder of the Muslim Legal Fund of America, largely directed by Muslim Brotherhood members.

He was a secretary-treasurer of the American Middle Eastern League for Palestine (AMELP), which is closely linked to the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), which supports Hamas and terrorism against Israel.

Hitto was vice president of the CAIR Dallas/Fort Worth chapter, and director of the Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth Center of Dallas, which was a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

The list goes on and on.

To sum up the situation, Hassan Hassan of the United Arab Emirates newspaper The National published an article titled “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution.”

________________Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

NY Times – Revisionist history on the West Bank

By SUA Staff – Why is it, that after 45 years, the US media still mischaracterizes the 1967 war in the Middle East?

Why, not because they cannot read or study factual history, rather, they chose to adopt revisionist history. In the following article below, it is clear that this is yet another example of how the so-called “newspaper of record”, the NY Times, rewrites history and slants its news – blatantly.

When the Arab nations lined up to annihilate Israel in 1967, Jordan controlled in part, what is referred to as Yesha. Yesha is an acronym in Israel for “Yehuda Shomron ‘Azza'”, also known as the West Bank (Samaria and Judea) and the Gaza (Azza) Strip, and is one of a number of terms used to describe the areas won by Israel after the Six-Day War of June 1967.

In the area of Yesha on the “West Bank” of Judeah and Samaria, the NY Times claims Israel “took” it from Jordan. Unfortunately for the NY Times, that is a myth:


“Israel attacked Jordan to capture Jerusalem.”


Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein saying Israel would not attack Jordan unless he initiated hostilities. When Jordanian radar picked up a cluster of planes flying from Egypt to Israel, and the Egyptians convinced Hussein the planes were theirs, he then ordered the shelling of West Jerusalem. It turned out the planes were Israel’s, and were returning from destroying the Egyptian air force on the ground. Meanwhile, Syrian and Iraqi troops attacked Israel’s northern frontier.

Had Jordan not attacked, the status of Jerusalem would not have changed during the course of the war. Once the city came under fire, however, Israel needed to defend it, and, in doing so, took the opportunity to unify the city, ending Jordan’s 19-year occupation of the eastern part.

Another fact they missed was the pre-war set, and the position of Jordan:

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30, 1967. Nasser (Egypt) then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel . . . ​to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.” On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

Buoyed by false reports of Egyptian success, Jordan initiated offensive actions against Israel from the eastern portion of Jerusalem and from lands it occupied west of the Jordan river (the West Bank). Israeli forces responded by attacking Jordanian military positions. After a three days of fierce fighting, especially in and around Jerusalem, Israeli forces defeated the Jordanians and gained control of all of Jerusalem as well as the West Bank, the historical heartland of the Jewish people known to Israelis as Judea and Samaria.


Jordan (originally called Transjordan) was created out of the Palestine Mandate by Great Britain in 1923, and achieved full independence in 1946. In 1948, during the war against Israel, Transjordan conquered and annexed what became known as the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Old City of Jerusalem, but only Britain and Pakistan recognized its sovereignty there.

In fact, one small issue defies logic, how was Judea every anyone else’s but Israel’s, since it was originally Judah, one of the 12 tribes of Israel? The very name Judea (Yehuda) is part the root for the term “Jew”. How was Judea ever an ancestral Arab homeland, let alone a “Hashemite” homeland, since it was a land conquered from the Jews?

Even the Nazis called Jews “Juden”. History, fail to know it – doomed to repeat it – shame on the NY Times – again!

NY Times Claims Israel ‘Took’ Yesha from Jordan in 1967

A NY Times editorial rewrites history: Israel “took” Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967, when Jordan fled the areas in the Six Day war.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu – Israel National News

New York Times editorial Tuesday rewrites history and claims Israel “took” Judea and Samaria from Jordan in 1967, when Jordan fled the areas after joining other Arab nations as they converged on Israel in the Six Day War.

The editorial lambasted Israel in last week’s non-binding report by a government-appointed judicial panel, which contradicted the international community’s claim that Israel is an “occupier” and that it is illegal for Jewish communities to exist in Judea and Samaria.

The editorial stance of the Times was not surprising, but its editorial actually twisted the fact that Israel never “took” or conquered Judea and Samaria. The newspaper also repeated the frequent claim, not supported by facts, that all of Judea and Samaria were under authorized Jordanian sovereignty.

The Israeli panel of three legal experts, chaired by former High Court Justice Edmund Levy, pointed out that Jordan actually was the occupier of what mainstream media calls the “West Bank, which also is a misnomer because the literal definition is all of the land west of the Jordan River and reaching the Mediterranean Coast.

The United Nations partition plan of 1947 was to divide Israel, administered under the British Mandate, between Israel and a new Arab state after Britain had created the artificial country of Transjordan. After the Arab world refused to accept the idea of a Jewish State of Israel, the War for Independence broke out and ended with the Temporary Armistice Lines of 1949. Jordan assumed sovereignty over all of Judea and Samaria because its forces had occupied the area.

Jordanian forces fled the entire area during the Six Day War in 1967, leaving Israel to administer Judea and Samaria. Israel could be termed an “occupier” in the land that fell under its control and had been part of the country, but Jordan itself had occupied Judea and Samaria in 1947.

Nevertheless, The New York Times editorial continues to allege that Israel is in violation of “the Fourth Geneva Convention [that] bars occupying powers from settling their own populations in occupied lands.”

Even the editorial’s headline – “Wrong Time for New Settlements” – was a bit misleading concerning the newspaper’s opinion, which does not leave an option for a “right time” for settlements.

The Times also concluded that the Levy report was a “disastrous blow” because “pushing ahead with new settlements in the West Bank” is an obstacle to “peace talks, the best guarantee of a durable solution” to the Palestinian Authority-Israeli dispute.”

The newspaper even warned that the report also will damage Western efforts to halt Iran’s unsupervised nuclear development.

It reasoned that the report will bring about “new international anger at Israel…that could divert attention from Iran just when the world is bearing down with sanctions and negotiations to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.”

Jordanian Instability

Editor’s Note – The Middle East is a house of cards with a base that is unsustainable as we see Syria in its civil war and about to fall. Yet, Jordan is likely next, having a land full of refugees, terror groups, and an infrastructure that is failing to keep pace with managing and governing.

EU concerned about potential instability in Jordan

EU Observer

King Abdullah II of Jordan


BRUSSELS – With all eyes on violence in Syria, some EU countries are becoming increasingly concerned about the risk of instability in neighbouring Jordan.

A senior EU diplomatic contact told this website on Wednesday (8 February) that the Arab Spring is taking a nasty turn inside one of the West’s main allies in the region. “The problem now is if things get worse and spill into Jordan,” the source said.

Ruled by King Abdullah II – better known abroad for his high society wife, Queen Rania – the Bedouin tribes which form the bulk of Jordanian society and its security forces have been grumbling about the royal clique’s monopoly on wealth and power for the past year.

In recent weeks, they stopped calling for reform and started calling for the king to step down.

“The mood has shifted quite sharply. There is a loss of support in the Bedouin bedrock which is turning quite antagonistic at this stage … I am not saying it’s on the brink of instability, but there has been a qualitative change,” Alastair Crooke, a former EU advisor on Middle East security affairs who now runs an NGO in Lebanon, told EUobserver.

“It’s another artificial state. It’s a very fragile country,” Ali Ben-David, a defence expert for Israel’s Channel 10 TV station, said.

With Jordan currently home to some 750,000 reguees from Iraq, including some Islamist radical groups, he added that if Jordan begins to unravel, it could create a security nightmare for Israel. “Tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq lost their job and they are looking for their next target … If things begin spilling into Jordan, you could get both Al-Qaeda and the Iranian revolutionary guard camped on the other side of the Jordan river,” he said.

North of the border in Syria, some 2,500 EU citizens are believed to be still in the country amid escalating violence.

Around 90 percent are dual EU-Syrian citizens and are expected to see out the crisis no matter what happens.

France – a former colonial power in Syria – has the largest group among the remaining 10 percent. The French foreign ministry says that despite reports of mass-killings in Homs over the past weekend, the situation in the rest of the country has not significantly deteriorated.

“We haven’t started the launch code for an evacuation. We haven’t even closed our embassy. The only thing we’ve done is recalled our ambassador for consultations, which is a political gesture,” a French diplomat said.

Meanwhile, Lebanon – the most volatile country in the region in contemporary history – is looking the most stable for the time being.

A speech on Tuesday by Hassan Nasrallah – the chief of the main military power in Lebanon, Hezbollah – in which he said he does not take orders from Iran, might mean he will not start a war with Israel to take the heat off his allies in Damascus and Tehran.

The British foreign office says people should avoid all but essential travel to anywhere east of the mountains which bisect Lebanon from north to south, due to risk of kidnapping and Syrian military incursions.

For his part, Crooke, who lives in Beirut, said a traveller would have to go well off the beaten track into militant training camps in the foothills, Palestinian refugee camps in the south or smuggler villages which straddle the Lebanon-Syria border, to get into trouble.

“If you are using ordinary routes, the Bekaa valley [the eastern half of the country] is quite normal – people are crossing it every day to go to Damascus and back,” he said.

The Syrian Powder Keg – Worries on the borders

Editor’s Note – With Hezbollah soldiers and IRGC troops already inside Syria, one wonders what will become of Iran’s ally Bashir Assad. Should the Assad regime fall to non-Shi’ite control, the Sunnis will likely be the heirs to the halls of power in Damascus. What this means for Israel is that the central power will shift, and not to a good end. This is because the vast armaments of Syria most likely to be whisked away are his missiles, and Iran won’t allow them to fall outside their sphere of influence or control, rather, their puppets, or chess pieces in Lebanon will be sure to claim them and Hezbollah has the where-withal to do just that.

It was also reported over the weekend that NATO and US troops were massing on the northern border of Jordan with Syria, near the city of al-Mafraq by Boiling Frogs, but the story was pulled down under what some were told was a news embargo until today. The story however took on a life of its own and sites like RT.com ran with it here. The fact that this was considered significant was perhaps a leap, based on the fact that US troops exiting Iraq did not go home, but landed at bases and installations Jordan.

The more likely story though was that because NATO and US troops are frequently inside Jordan, and there are training facilities in that area, it does not indicate an imminent action is planned. However, the world is sitting on a fence stile watching events in Syria with great interest, and because it is so volatile, it is a ripe environment to make connections that may indicate actions are imminent. Stay tuned.

IDF Commander: Hizbullah Will Take Over Assad’s Missiles

Northern Commander Yair Golan, unlike Barak and Ya’alon, warns that Hizbullah will gain control of Assad’s missiles if his regime falls.

By Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Israel National News

The fall of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime will result in Hizbullah’s taking over his arsenal of advanced missiles, warns Major General Yair Golan, head of the Northern Command.

His worried prediction contrasts with comments made by Ministers Ehud Barak and Moshe Ya’alon, both former IDF Chiefs of Staff, that the fall of Assad would be good for the Middle East as a whole, including Israel. His comments were quoted in Defense News in Israel by Globes.

“There is a very real danger that if Assad’s regime falls apart, his arsenal of advanced weapons, including ground-to-sea missiles and aerial defense systems, will fall into the hands of Hizbullah and other radical groups,” the senior general said.

He said that Israel is better off vis a vis its enemies when there are centralized regimes in authority. Noting that the Syrian border is the quietest of all the fronts the army faces, Golan explained, “Experience has taught us one thing: whenever the central government’s authority weakens, there is fertile ground for terror. When terror sprouts in Syria, there is no doubt against whom it will be aimed.

“We have been able to stand against centralized authorities since 1974, and we can get along [with our deterrence capabilities]. But when this authority is turned over to irresponsible leaders, there is no check on what is going on.”

He pointed out that there is no unified opposition leader in Syria, and the fall of Assad will “be very troublesome.” Golan said that Hizbullah will gets its hands on Assad’s arsenal regardless of whether it is handed over to them or not.

Golan also took issue with the common view that Lebanon and Syria are a single front. The internal dissension in Syria requires a different frame of mind that views the two as separate fronts, he said.

Minister Ya’alon told foreign journalists on Monday that the fall of Assad would put and end to the Iranian-Syrian-Hamas-Hizbullah terror axis.

Defense Minister Barak said on Sunday that the downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad would be a “blessing to the Middle East.”

Hizbollah is the terrorist organization operating out of Lebanon that fought against Israel in the 2006 Second Lebanon War.