Steven Emerson rips apart yet another ridiculous mainstream media whitewash of radical Islamic front group CAIR, this time in the St. Petersburg Times, masquerading as a “balanced report” but uncritically parroting CAIR’s propaganda: CAIR’s Friends in the Media.

It appears the St. Petersburg Times is channeling the New York Times. In an article titled, “With CAIR, compromise complicated,” reporter Susan Taylor Martin puts forth a “balanced” report, countering points made by CAIR’s “pro-Israel” critics (as all of CAIR’s critics are, don’t you know?) with an equal number of points made by “friends” of CAIR, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether or not CAIR is an organization that, in the words of one of CAIR’s defenders quoted by Martin, “could be worked with.”

In the process, Martin omits damning and easily verifiable information about CAIR, while allowing CAIR Florida spokesman Ahmed Bedier an unchecked platform to spew his propaganda – more on that later.

Halfway through the article, Martin concedes:

Much of the controversy over CAIR stems from its roots in the Palestinian struggle against Israel. The Washington-based council was founded in 1994 by leaders of the Islamic Association of Palestine; a now-defunct U.S. organization accused of supporting Hamas, but never designated a terrorist group itself.

But she does no independent reporting to demonstrate that the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) is not merely “accused” of supporting Hamas. It has, in fact, lost a $156 million civil judgment in a case against Hamas-front groups in the United States. Nor does Martin allude to the copious amounts of documentary evidence released in the Hamas-fundraising case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), stating unequivocally that CAIR was part of the Hamas-Muslim Brotherhood network in the US. The jury is currently deliberating the HLF defendants’ fate. But the documents speak for themselves.

Page four of Government Exhibit 3-3, for example, titled “Work paper #1: A historical outline and main issues,” written in October of 1991, discusses how and why IAP came into being, and its ties to other well known Hamas-front groups including the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR) and the Occupied Land Fund, the precursor to HLF. This document directly ties IAP to Hamas, in the own words of the Muslim Brotherhood:

In 1981, the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) founded the Islamic Association for Palestine to serve the cause of Palestine on the political and media fronts. The Association has absorbed most of the Ikhwan’s Palestinian energy at the leadership and grassroots levels in addition to some of the brothers from other countries … The Association’s work has developed a great deal since its inception, particularly with the formation of the Palestine Committee, the beginning of the Intifada at the end of 1987 and the proclamation of the Hamas movement. The Association has organizations affiliated with it such as (The United Association for Studies & Research, The Occupied Land Fund, and The Media Office), dedicated main personnel, several periodicals, research, studies and field branches in all the regions.

And there has been much more information from the HLF trial linking CAIR to Hamas.

For example, it is listed among members of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee in a 1994 agenda (page 6). And two CAIR founders, including executive director Nihad Awad, attended a secret 1993 gathering of Hamas members and supporters to discuss ways to “derail” the Oslo peace accord. Has anyone asked CAIR to respond to this disclosure? If Martin did, she didn’t tell her readers.

Rather, she gives space for CAIR board member Ihsan Bagby to engage in a subtle variation of CAIR’s main “CAIR = Islam“ theme, namely that ”Hamas = Palestinians:“

Most Muslims support the Palestinian cause, making it hard for CAIR to be detached, says Ihsan Bagby, a CAIR board member and University of Kentucky professor.

”CAIR tries to stay out of international issues, but they are dragged into it partly because the American Muslim community wants their voice to be heard on this issue because it is so important,“ Bagby says.

Bagby’s response fails to address whether CAIR’s origins in Hamas are an issue at all, and Martin lets him get away with it.

Additionally, she allows him a laughable line about CAIR supposedly staying out of ”international issues,” shifting blame on the American Muslim community for their any of their forays into international relations. As anyone who has followed CAIR for any length of time knows, the opposite is true, and it is CAIR dragging the American Muslim community down its maximalist, pro-Hamas path.