Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton is not a friend of Israel - Aviel Sheyin-Stevens

by Aviel Sheyin-Stevens

Hillary Clinton supports Israel when she needs the Jewish vote and campaign contributions. As Secretary of State, she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948.

Hillary Clinton has a lifetime of anti-Israel positions. She said she was a big supporter of Israel when she was in the U.S. Senate, when she needed campaign contributions from American Jews and New York’s Jewish voting bloc. She has not been pro-Israel since her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009.

When Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, she helped Barack Obama craft his anti-Israel positions. Like other presidents, Obama made his own policy; he fundamentally transformed America’s foreign policy. He reoriented America's Middle East policy in favor of the ayatollahs, to make Iran the regional superpower, disadvantaging America’s traditional allies: Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Arab monarchies. Like other secretaries of state, Hillary had the option of resigning if she did not agree with the foreign policy, but she shared the same flawed vision of the world as Obama.

Hillary Clinton made an official visit to the Middle East in November 1999, when her husband was the president. During the visit, Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestine leader Yasser Arafat, made slanderous allegations in her presence: “Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.” Suha Arafat also accused Israel of contaminating the water sources used by Palestinians with “chemical materials” and “poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.”

Hillary listened to a real-time translation of the accusations without objections. She also hugged and kissed Suha Arafat when she finished speaking. Twelve hours passed without a word from Hillary. Only when she saw the public outcry did she call Suha Arafat’s words “inflammatory.” She also called on all sides to refrain from “inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations,” including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.

Then Hillary did what she and her husband often do when they mess up: She blamed others. First she blamed the translator, though the Palestinians would have assigned one of their most capable translators to handle a major speech by the wife of the Palestinian leader. She then tried to blame the Americans traveling with her, who, she said, told her that Suha Arafat’s remarks were “not worthy of any particular comment.” She also blamed her husband: If she were not the First Lady, she could have spoken up sooner.

Hillary should not have been there. Her advisers told her that traveling to the Territories in the middle of a difficult peace process and her own Senate race was to court disaster. Perhaps the sumptuous trappings of overseas travel as First Lady won out. When Republicans questioned her actions, she responded with arrogance: “It is unfortunate that there are any questions about what was a very straightforward occasion.” Most Americans would not agree that public accusations that an American ally was engaging in chemical genocide make for a “straightforward occasion.” Till now, Hillary Clinton has not specifically contradicted nor denounced the lies uttered by Suha Arafat in her presence.

Hillary Clinton became a supporter of Israel in her Senate years because she needed the Jewish vote and campaign contributions. After becoming the Secretary of State, one of her first actions was to call for the end of construction of new homes for Jews in existing neighborhoods in Jerusalem and the Territories, contravening an existing U.S./Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. This was a major error by the Hillary Clinton State Department, compounded by the inclusion of Jerusalem. Elliot Abrams, who negotiated the agreement for the U.S., stated that the agreement was valid.

In early 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded the “settlement” freeze and was quickly supported by Obama. The Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue as an opportunity to avoid negotiations. They used the demands for a “settlement” freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before she became Secretary of State.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu announced a ten-month “settlement” freeze. It was approved by the Israeli cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from America, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first nine months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.

As the end of the “settlement” freeze approached, the U.S. asked Israel to extend the freeze. Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, based on their experience with Hillary denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration. The written offer never came; Hillary was not negotiating in good faith.

In 2011, speaking at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the left-wing Brookings Institution, Hillary Clinton attempted to delegitimize Israel as a free nation by expressing concern for Israel’s social climate in the wake of limitations regarding female singing in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel. She said the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing reminded her of the situation in Iran. Whereas, in Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel the women sang, but some people, exercising their personal freedom, felt it was against their religious beliefs and were allowed to walk out. In the IDF, most senior officers supported the women’s right to sing.

Hillary Clinton also spoke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women, at the request of both men and women who are stringently Orthodox, and compared it to the segregation era in America. She said “it’s reminiscent of Rosa Parks.” Her statement was part of the continued attempt to de-legitimize Israeli democracy by the Obama administration.

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s email scandals, the media coverage of her emails from her close friend Sidney Blumenthal has mostly been about his recommendations about Libya; however, he also sent many emails about Israel. Some of them consisted of forwarding articles from his anti-Semitic son, writer Max Blumenthal, but others were recommendations of policies describing Israel as the oppressor.

As reported by the National Review Online: Blumenthal sent dozens of e-mails advising Clinton on Israel in 2010. Before her March speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Blumenthal sent Clinton an article from left-wing Israeli writer Uri Avnery accusing the Netanyahu government of “starting a rebellion” against America and defending interests that diverge from America’s. Clinton responded: “I have to speak to AIPAC tomorrow…How — and should I — use this [sic]?” Blumenthal said he will send another memo the next day.

In that memo, he told Hillary to “hold Bibi [Binyamin Netanyahu]’s feet to the fire” on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process: “Perhaps most controversial would be to remind [AIPAC] in as subtle but also direct a way as you can that it does not have a monopoly over American Jewish opinion. Bibi is stage managing US Jewish organizations (and neocons, and the religious right, and whomever else he can muster) against the administration. AIPAC itself has become an organ of the Israeli right, specifically Likud.” Whereas, AIPAC favors Israel’s left-wing parties, and is becoming more so in reaction to J-Street, the group formed to give political cover to Obama among liberal Jews. J-Street professes to be pro-Israel, and pro-peace, but its public pronouncements regularly attack the policies of the Israeli government, and back all pressure Obama directs at Israel.

On May 17, Blumenthal forwarded Hillary an article on the Israeli government’s decision to deny pro-Palestine activist Noam Chomsky access to the Territories. Blumenthal wrote that: “Barring him for his political opinions has created a needless PR disaster. The US should not be a passive onlooker…The US effort on his behalf to gain entry should be part of the story.” Hillary forwarded the memo to her staff with instructions to “pls print 3 copies.” Chomsky is anti-Israel and has been fierce in his opposition to Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism, and had been banned from the country since 2010.

In an e-mail from May 31 entitled “Several observations on the Israeli raid,” Blumenthal blamed Netanyahu’s family “inferiority complex” for his decision to launch a raid on the “Gaza Flotilla,” a group of ships seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza: “Bibi desperately seeks his father’s approbation and can never equal his dead brother.” Blumenthal then hinted that the raid was deliberately orchestrated to kill the peace process and humiliate Obama before his scheduled visit with the prime minister. Hillary forwarded the message to Jake Sullivan, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department, and she wrote: “FYI and I told you so.”

On July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks published a collection of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails leaked to WikiLeaks. The DNC is the governing body of the United States' Democratic Party. The leak caused the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, CEO Amy Dacey, CFO Brad Marshall, and Communications Director Luis Miranda. The leak revealed attempts to smear Bernie Sanders, a candidate in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, with information that might damage him. Wasserman Schultz called Jeff Weaver, manager of Bernie Sanders' campaign, a "damn liar." The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign."

The DNC wanted to use Sanders’s Jewish heritage and lack of religious belief against him. In one of the email chains, Marshall told Dacey that someone should ask Sanders if he is an atheist: “Get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God [sic]. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.” The DNC announced Wasserman Schultz would not gavel open the Democratic Party’s convention. Hillary subsequently appointed Wasserman Schultz chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign’s “50 state program.”

There is nothing in Hillary Clinton’s history that would qualify her for the presidency, and much that should disqualify her. The most important job she ever held was as the Secretary of State, heading the U.S. Department of State, principally concerned with foreign affairs. Under her watch as Secretary of State, American foreign policy had one setback after another, separated by disasters. She orchestrated the U.S. intervention in Libya and Egypt, undermining governments that were no threat to American interests, which led to terrorist chaos in Libya and Islamic extremists taking over in Egypt.

Under Hillary’s watch as Secretary of State was the radical transformation of American foreign policy and the historic catastrophe — permitting Iranians to develop nuclear  weapons while making it difficult for Israel to stop them. Obama’s years-long negotiations with Iran allowed time to multiply, disperse, and fortify Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Obama administration’s leakage of Israel’s secret agreement with Azerbaijan, allowing Israeli warplanes to refuel if attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, sabotaged any Israeli attempt to destroy Iranian facilities.

In the 2009 Iranian Green Movement, in which protesters demanded the removal of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from office, Hillary Clinton was intent on “engagement” with the world’s most dangerous regime and vilest state-sponsor of terrorism. She cut funding to organizations supporting Iranian human rights, then sat by as thousands of Iranians were imprisoned, tortured and executed. She repeatedly watered down sanctions against Iran, and it was during her tenure that negotiations began with the Ahmadinejad regime, culminating in the Iranian deal, which she supported, and still supports: Iran could develop nuclear weapons and the ayatollahs get $150 billion.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, Islamic State, Libya, Syria and Yemen are the dark forces in Israel’s neighborhood. They could have looked different today had Hillary not betrayed America’s democratic values with her “smart power.” Hillary, as well as Obama, sought to put distance diplomatically between America and Israel.

She berated Netanyahu publicly for announcing Jerusalem home building, compared Israel to an apartheid regime, correlated the status of women in Israel to that in Iran, demanded reckless concessions from Israel to promote “peace talks” while never making serious demands of the Palestinian Authority or ever holding it accountable, granted legitimacy to George Soros-sponsored J Street, made a false equivalency between terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s attempts to defend itself, questioned Israel’s commitment to its American alliance, rejected the legitimacy of all Jewish construction across the Green Line including Jerusalem neighborhoods, etc.

Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration when he talked about the truth of the internationally supported Palestinian Arab demand that Israel must transfer control over Jerusalem and the Territories to the Palestinians Jew-free. From its first days in office, the Obama administration rejected the civil rights of Jews as Jews in these areas and seeks the complete negation of their rights through destruction, mass expulsion, and property seizure: ethnic cleansing. So if Hillary were elected president, her administration could be an Obama third term: the American people could be left unprotected from Islamic terrorists, and Israel could face unprecedented pressure to submit to Palestinian Arab terrorists.

The Republicans have become the pro-Israel party. Democrats talk about their commitment to Israel, but when Hillary and Obama were abusing Israel diplomatically, there was no pushback from congressional Democrats. Even the Jewish Democrats in Congress always stood with the administration. Whereas, Republicans have stood up for Israel unapologetically, and just passed the most pro-Israel platform in American history.

The blatant anti-Semitism displayed at the 2016 Democratic National Convention merits a mention: Booing any mention of Israel, chanting "Intifada", burning the Israeli flag, etc. The Democrats do not even try to disguise their disdain for Jews any more. Nevertheless, a vast majority of American Jews could still vote for Hillary and other Democrats.

Hillary Clinton is campaigning on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as she did in the Senate, and Obama did twice for the presidency. As Secretary of State, she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine-year period when she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State. American voters should not let her get away with hiding her true self. Israel-focused Americans should vote for Republicans in Senate and congressional races, as well as for Donald Trump as president. Hillary Clinton has collapsed her election.

Dr. Sheyin-Stevens is a Registered Patent Attorney based in Florida, USA. He earned his Doctorate in Law from the University of Miami.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jihadists Target Spain - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

"We will recover al-Andalus, Allah willing. Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you".

  • The Islamic State document said that since the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478, Spain "has done everything to destroy the Koran." It said that Spain tortured Muslims, including burning them alive. Therefore, according to the Islamic State, "Spain is a criminal state that usurps our land." The document calls on jihadists to "reconnoiter airline and train routes for attacks." It also calls on followers to "poison food and water" with insecticides.
  • "We will kill any 'innocent' Spanish infidel we find in Muslim lands, and... whether we are European in origin or not, we will kill you in your cities and towns according to our plan." — Islamic State document, May 30, 2016.
  • "We will recover al-Andalus, Allah willing. Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you. No Muslim can forget Córdoba, Toledo or Xàtiva. There are many faithful and sincere Muslims who swear they will return to al-Andalus." — Islamic State video, January 31, 2016.
  • "Spain is the land of our forefathers and we are going to take it back with the power of Allah." — Islamic State video, January 7, 2016.
Islamic militants are stepping up a propaganda war against Spain. In recent months, Islamic State and other jihadist groups have produced a flurry of videos and documents calling on Muslims to reconquer al-Andalus.

Al-Andalus is the Arabic name given to those parts of Spain, Portugal and France occupied by Muslim conquerors (also known as the Moors) from 711 to 1492. Many Muslims believe that territories Muslims lost during the Christian Reconquest of Spain still belong to the realm of Islam. They claim that Islamic law gives them the right to re-establish Muslim rule there.

A recent Islamic State document includes a list of grievances against Spain for wrongs done to Muslims since the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa on July 16, 1212, when the Christian forces of King Alfonso VIII of Castile routed the Almohad Muslim rulers of the southern half of the Iberian Peninsula. More than 100,000 Muslims were killed in the battle, which was a key victory in the Catholic Monarchs' "Reconquista" of Spain.

The document said that since the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition in 1478, Spain "has done everything to destroy the Koran." It said that Spain tortured Muslims, including burning them alive. 

Therefore, according to the Islamic State, "Spain is a criminal state that usurps our land." The document calls on jihadists to "reconnoiter airline and train routes for attacks." It also calls on followers to "poison food and water" with insecticides.

The document concludes: "The actions of your ancestors are the reason for our actions today."

On July 15, 2016, Islamic State released its first propaganda video with Spanish subtitles. The high quality of the Spanish translation, both in writing and in syntax, led some analysts to conclude that that the translator's mother tongue is Spanish and that the subtitling may even have been done inside Spain.

On June 3, Islamic State released a video — "Month of Ramadan, Month of Conquest" — which mentions al-Andalus four times. Spain is the only non-Muslim country mentioned in the video.

On May 30, Islamic State released a two-page document in Spanish in which it issued threats directly against Spain. The document states:
"We will kill any 'innocent' Spanish infidel we find in Muslim lands, and if not we will reach your land. Our religion and our faith lives among you, and even though you do not know our names or what we look like and do not even know whether we are European in origin or not, we will kill you in your cities and towns according to our plan, in the same way that you are killing our families."
On January 31, Islamic State released a video in which one of its Spanish jihadists warned Spain that it would "pay a very heavy price" for expelling Muslims from al-Andalus. The eight-minute video included the following statement:
"I swear by Allah that you will pay a very heavy price and your demise will be very painful. We will recover al-Andalus, Allah willing. Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you. No Muslim can forget Córdoba, Toledo or Xàtiva. There are many faithful and sincere Muslims who swear they will return to al-Andalus."
An armed, masked Islamic State jihadist appears in a propaganda video, where he warns Spain that it would "pay a very heavy price" for expelling Muslims from al-Andalus hundreds of years ago. The Spanish subtitle above reads "Oh dear Andalus! You thought we forgot about you. I swear by Allah we have never forgotten you. No Muslim can forget Córdoba, Toledo or Xàtiva."

On January 7, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, which is fighting Islamic State for hegemony of North Africa, released a video calling for jihadist attacks in Madrid as a strategy to help Muslims recover the Spanish North African exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.

Another Islamic State video vowed to liberate al-Andalus from non-Muslims. A jihadist speaking in Spanish with a heavy North African accent said:
"I say to the entire world as a warning: We are living under the Islamic flag, the Islamic caliphate. We will die for it until we liberate those occupied lands, from Jakarta to Andalusia. And I declare: Spain is the land of our forefathers and we are going to take it back with the power of Allah."
Meanwhile, 33 jihadists were arrested in Spain in 17 different raids during the first nine months of 2016, according to the Spanish Interior Ministry.

Most recently, two Spanish citizens of Moroccan origin — Karim El Idrissi Soussi, 27, and a second man identified as 18-year-old O.S.A.A — were arrested in Madrid on jihad terror charges. One of the detainees is a 27-year-old computer science student who watched jihadist propaganda videos in class and threatened to massacre his fellow students.

According to the Interior Ministry, Soussi tried to join the Islamic State but was detained by Turkish authorities while attempting to cross the border into Syria. He was deported and just recently returned to Spain.

The Interior Ministry said Soussi's penchant for radical Islam became evident in November 2015, when the secondary school where he was studying computer science held a moment of silence to honor the victims of the jihadist attacks in Paris. According to teachers and students, Soussi shouted slogans in support of the attacks which killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan Theater.

On other occasions, Soussi publicly justified jihadist attacks by Islamic State, which he said was the ideal form of government for all Muslims. According to the Interior Ministry, Soussi visited a public library almost daily to connect to the internet and browse jihadist websites. He allegedly created fake profiles and posted jihadist material on social media sites. Soussi also criticized so-called moderate Muslims and expressed hope that someday Spain would become an Islamic emirate.

Soussi allegedly watched Islamic State propaganda videos during his computer science class and repeatedly threatened to bring weapons to school to kill his classmates.

The other jihadist, O.S.A.A., was arrested for the offenses of "glorifying jihadist terrorism" and "self-indoctrination for terrorist purposes." The Interior Ministry did not provide further details.

A total of 636 jihadists have been detained in the country since the March 2004 Madrid train bombings, in which nearly 200 people were killed and more than 2,000 injured.

A recent study by the Madrid-based Elcano Institute found that of the 150 jihadists arrested in Spain during the past four years, 124 (81.6%) were linked to Islamic State and 26 (18.4%) to al-Qaeda.

Of those linked to Islamic State, 45.3% were Spanish citizens, 41.1% were Moroccans and 13.6% had other nationalities. In terms of birth, 45.6% were born in Morocco and 39.1% were born in Spain. Only 15.3% were born in other countries.

In terms of immigration, 51.7% were first-generation immigrants, 42.2% were second- or third-generation immigrants, and 6.1% had no immigration background, which implies they are Spanish converts to Islam.

In terms of residency, 29.8% were arrested in Barcelona, 22.1% in Spain's North African exclave of Ceuta, and 15.3% in Madrid. The others were arrested in more than a dozen other localities across the country.

Islamic State has suffered setbacks on the battlefields of the Middle East, but the jihadist terror threat remains undiminished. In the words of Spanish terrorism analyst Florentino Portero: "Islamic State is answering military defeats with more terror."
Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Globalism, Soros, and Charlotte: Now I Get It - Christopher Chantrill

by Christopher Chantrill

--first, before the globalists ascend Mt. Olympus, they need to “pierce the shell” and destroy the prestige and the power of the nation state; otherwise the national governments will still have the power to tell the globalist gods to go pound sand.

For the last few months I’ve had a question in my mind: Just what is George Soros up to? Because I could not understand why a great capitalist speculator, a financial operator who makes the Koch Brothers look like altar boys, would be interested in funding a lefty activist group like Black Lives Matter. It didn’t compute.

But now I understand. No doubt you readers already figured it out. Alas, I am not so smart.

The light went on when I was reading “Progressivism Goes Global” by John Fonte and John Loo in National Review about the plans of the progressive global governance guys. The key point is articulated in a quote from Anne-Marie Slaughter, the head of policy and planning at the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Her idea is that the “global administrative state would work through the ‘coercive power of vertical [government] networks’”:
Vertical government networks pierce the shell of state sovereignty by making individual government institutions -- courts, regulatory agencies, or even legislators -- responsible for implementation of rules created by a supranational institution.
Don’t you just love that? The globalists get the power, and get to pull the strings behind the national governments, and coerce them into doing their global will.

But first, before the globalists ascend Mt. Olympus, they need to “pierce the shell” and destroy the prestige and the power of the nation state; otherwise the national governments will still have the power to tell the globalist gods to go pound sand. How do the globalists do that?

It’s obvious. They divide and conquer. They set the people in each nation state against each other. They divide them up by class, by race, by gender, by tribe: Black Lives Matter; La Raza; Human Rights Campaign, CAIR. With one ring to rule them all.

So that is why George Sauron and all the top-tier foundations are funding groups like Black Lives Matter. That is why the globalists are all in favor of unlimited immigration. The more that the people in America think of themselves as black or white or Hispanic or gay or Muslim rather than American, the easier it is for the global elite to “pierce the shell of state sovereignty” while we are all busy fighting each other.

So far so good. But there is a problem, as the globalists are finding out, to their horror.

The problem with globalism is what to do when things go wrong, as in the Euro, as in Muslim rapists in Europe and no-go areas in Sweden.

In the nation state, when things go wrong, the voters throw the rascals out and elect a new government. They might elect a Roosevelt over a blundering Hoover. Nothing changes, of course, unless they elect a Reagan, for the ruling class is still the ruling class blundering from crisis to crisis; but at least the people have a new leader and new hope.

What happens under global governance when things go wrong? Huh? Appoint a committee?

Exactly. You globalist geniuses didn’t think of that, did you?

That is what Enoch Powell meant when he said that the European project could not work because there was no European demos, no European people. You need a “people” when things go wrong, so the polity hangs together rather than separately.

Right now, of course, things are going wrong with the globalist project, and the result is that the people in the various nation states in Europe are rallying to politicians that want to re-establish the powers of the nation state to throw the globalist rascals out. While they still can.

What luck that the globalist project ran off the road so soon. Given another 20 years of Soros-funded identity politics, with Muslim Lives Matter making Black Lives Matter look like a walk in the park, the people of Europe would have split up into squabbling racial and religious identities, and with things going wrong and the failure of the globalist elite there would be no demos to throw the rascals out.

Hello globalists, progressives, and all the ships at sea. The whole point of constitutions and laws and separation of powers and elections to secure the consent of the governed is this. They help stop civil war. The political furniture that you want to “pierce” is the way for the people to check their rulers short of bloody civil war.

It is telling that in the aftermath of the Charlotte Riots, President Obama is burbling about white police officers learning about discrimination, and Hillary Clinton is missing in action. It is Donald Trump that is calling for unity.

Of course. Donald Trump stands for Making America -- the nation state of Americans -- Great Again. Obama and Clinton are globalist progressives. They don’t care about unity; they care about divide and conquer.
Now, finally, I get it.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Obama's Legacy of Demagoguery and Divisiveness - Ari Lieberman

by Ari Lieberman

The “Ferguson effect” takes its toll on the African-American community while race relations are at a nadir.

When Obama assumed office in 2009, there were high hopes that the first African American president with bi-racial parents would be able to bridge the racial divide and foster unity in the country. Those hopes were soon dashed. Nearly eight years later, the nation is more polarized than ever, as devastating race riots grip large metropolitan cities with alarming frequency.

Instead of offering hope, Obama gave us demagoguery. Instead of fostering unity he stoked and encouraged divisiveness. Instead of providing concrete solutions, he issued speeches laced with empty rhetoric and platitudes. Instead of calming the nation in times of crisis, he engaged in race baiting.

The first test of Obama’s seriousness in addressing race relations came just six months after being sworn in. Police officers in Cambridge Massachusetts received a call of a possible burglary in progress and responded. When arriving at the scene, they found Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. trying to force his way into his house through a malfunctioning door. The police were unfamiliar with his identity and asked for identification to establish residency. Gates instantly became irate, indignant and uncooperative. It went downhill from there. Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct, though the charges were later dropped.

An event that was essentially a misunderstanding and a local matter was suddenly thrust into the spotlight and propelled to the national stage. You see, Gates, an African American, cried racism. He also happened to be pals with Obama. Obama could have told Gates to work things out with the police or file a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board if he felt slighted. Instead, Obama stoked the flames of hate by publicly siding with Gates, claiming the police “acted stupidly.” 

Before ascertaining the facts, Obama rushed to judgment and immediately condemned those entrusted with safeguarding our security. His asinine response would set the administration’s tone for the next seven years. Obama later backtracked on his rush to judgment and offered the arresting police officer, Sgt. James Crowley, a beer but the damage had already been done. The only thing that the African American community took away from the encounter was that the police acted “stupidly,” thus reinforcing preexisting negative perceptions so prevalent within that community.

There is no doubt that some level of tension exists between various police departments and members of the African American community but the president has a responsibility to calm frayed nerves and foster understanding and outreach. Instead, Obama has done the opposite. Race-baiting, tax cheats and serial liars like Al Sharpton are frequent guests of the White House.  According to official records, Sharpton visited the White House on more than 100 occasions and that number excludes official administration visits to him.

Obama’s association with the so-called Black Lives Matter movement is also a source of concern. The White House has played host to leaders of this nefarious movement on a number of occasions. Even more disturbing is the fact that Obama has referred to BLM-inspired demonstrations as “a good thing.”

The George Soros-funded BLM movement was propelled to the national scene after the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson Missouri and the death of Eric Garner in Staten Island New York. Police officers, accused of wrongfully killing the two suspects, were cleared of all wrong-doing after thorough and independent judicial and legal reviews.

Other police officers involved in confrontations in which black suspects died were similarly exonerated. Notably, in the case of Freddie Gray, an African American judge acquitted three police officers in connection with the suspect’s death which ultimately led to the dropping of charges against the remaining three officers charged with wrong-doing.

That did not stop thugs, encouraged by BLM, from taking to the streets and causing mayhem in the form of looting, beatings, destruction of public and private property, obstructing traffic and violently confronting law enforcement. Other high-profile, police-involved confrontations with African American suspects resulted in similar violent demonstrations, with BLM at its epicenter.

Of the nine high-profile confrontations with African-American suspects in recent years, four suspects were armed with functioning handguns. One was armed with an imitation airsoft pistol that had its orange marker – signifying that he gun wasn’t real – removed. All nine suspects either resisted arrest or engaged in felony evasion or other form on non-compliance. Some of the police officers were themselves African American or otherwise non-white placing a wrench in the theory that the killings were motivated by racism.

Keith Lamont Scott, whose killing sparked violent protests in Charlotte, was armed with a handgun when shot. Video footage shows that he was shot after repeated warnings to drop the gun he was holding. The weapon found at the scene was bio-metrically linked to him. His shooter was an African American police officer.

This of course, did not stop Hillary Clinton from pandering and condemning the police before all the facts were fleshed out. Like Obama, Clinton rushed to judgment because of pre-disposed prejudices and cheap electioneering.

The sad irony is that the BLM movement, which cares nothing of the scourge of black-on-black violence and gives it scant mention, has hurt rather than helped the very community it purports to represent. Cities that have witnessed spasms of anti-police violence in response to isolated incidents involving police shootings, have witnessed dramatic spikes in violent crimes, including homicides.

Significant spikes in murder rates were recorded in St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Cleveland. Baltimore, the city that witnessed several days of violent race riots following the Freddie Gray incident, experienced the most significant increase, up an alarming 20 percent from the previous year. Last week’s multiple shooting in Baltimore, in which 8 people, including a 3-year old girl, were wounded serves to highlight the surging crime problem.

The violence that we are witnessing in these and other inner city areas can be directly attributed to the so-called “Ferguson effect.” Police are avoiding high-crime, inner city areas for fear of adversarial confrontation with hostile elements. Pro-active, anti-narcotics operations that had been so effective in keeping crime rates down have been all but suspended.

Police officers are tasked with making split-second decisions and their lives depend on making the right decisions. If they react too slowly, they risk death. If they react too quickly, they risk termination of employment, lengthy court proceedings and possibly prison.

During Obama’s tenure, there have been at least 10 major race riots and a staggering 60 percent of Americans believe that race relations have worsened. By meeting with race-baiters and issuing inflammatory comments that bear no relation to reality, Obama has lent legitimacy to those who seek to divide America. His legacy will be stained with demagoguery and divisiveness.

Ari Lieberman is an attorney and former prosecutor who has authored numerous articles and publications on matters concerning the Middle East and is considered an authority on geo-political and military developments affecting the region.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Ending the Palestinian Exception - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Is the U.S. finally ready to lay the "two-state solution" to rest?

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Ahead of Monday night’s first presidential debate, Rudolph Giuliani – former New York mayor and Republican nominee Donald Trump’s current adviser – spoke at the Israeli American Council’s annual conference. Four days of intense debate preparation with Trump preceded the talk. Giuliani insisted the time has come for the US to “reject the whole notion of a two-state solution in Israel.”

It can only be hoped that regardless of who prevails in November, Giuliani’s statement will become the official position of the next US administration.

In his speech before the UN General Assembly last week PLO and Fatah chief and unelected Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said many things to drive home the basic point that he is not interested in peace with Israel. He is interested in destroying Israel. But one particular demand stands out.

It stands out not because it is new. It isn’t new.

Abbas says it all the time and his advisers say it all the time. They say it to Palestinian and international audiences alike, and it always is met with support or at least sympathy.

Abbas demanded that Israel stop arresting Palestinian terrorists and release all Palestinian terrorists from its prisons. That is, he demanded that Israel allow thousands of convicted terrorists to walk free and refrain from doing anything to interfere with terrorists engaged planning and carrying out the murder of its citizens.

The overwhelming majority of Palestinians support this demand. And so does the US government.

During US Secretary of State John Kerry’s failed peace process in 2013-14, President Barack Obama and Kerry embraced Abbas’s demand that Israel release 104 terrorist murderers from its prisons as a precondition for agreeing to negotiate with the Jewish state.

Bowing to US pressure, Israel released 78 terrorists from its jails in three tranches. Ahead of the fourth scheduled release, Abbas and his advisers bragged that they would cut off talks with Israel as soon as the last group of terrorist murderers were released.

That is, they admitted that the negotiations, such as they were, were nothing more than a means to achieve the goal of freeing murderers.

Rather than condemn Abbas and his colleagues for their cynical bad faith and repulsive immorality, the Obama administration chastised Israel for refusing to play along. When Israel responded to their statements by refusing to release the last group of 26 convicted terrorists, the administration accused Israel of breaching the terms of the negotiations.

Obama, Kerry and their advisers held Israel responsible for the talks’ failure.

It’s important to consider what Abbas’s demand for free-range terrorists says about him. It is important to ponder what the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are partners in this demand says about them as a society.

And it is worth pondering as well the strategic rationality and moral stature of a US government that supports this position.

As far as Abbas and the Palestinians are concerned, their refusal to view mass murderers as criminals tells us a great deal about who they are and what they want.

The Palestinian national movement they have come to embody was never about a deep-seated desire for national liberation. It was never about building “Palestine.”

From the time it was created by Amin el-Husseini in 1920, Palestinian identity has been about the negation of the Jewish national liberation movement – Zionism. And since Israel achieved independence in 1948, the Palestinians have defined themselves by their collective dedication to annihilating the Jewish state – hence their support for terrorists who kill Jews.

Husseini’s heir Yasser Arafat shared his view that terrorism was a both strategic goal in and of itself and a means to achieve the ultimate end of the Palestinian movement – that is, the violent eradication of Israel.

As the heir to both men, Abbas, like his sometimes partners and sometimes rivals in Hamas, has never been interested in building anything. And indeed, he hasn’t.

Consider what is loosely referred to as the “Palestinian economy.”

In an article published this week by the Hebrew-language online journal Mida, economist Uri Redler showed that the Palestinian economy isn’t actually an economy. It is an extortion racket.

Using World Bank data, Redler showed that the Palestinian economy is an optical illusion. In its 22 years of existence, the PA has almost entirely destroyed the private sector in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Seventy-five percent of its tax income comes from indirect taxes that Israel collects for it on imports. Forty percent of its budget comes from donors. Only 18% of it income comes from direct taxation. And most of that comes from deduction at source of PA employees.

Since Operation Protective Edge in 2014, only 15% of foreign aid toward the reconstruction of Gaza has been used for reconstruction projects. The rest of the money has been used as discretionary funds by Hamas. Seventy percent of the funds have come from American and EU taxpayers. This means that the US and the EU have been directly funding Hamas terrorists.

It is not surprising that the aid has been diverted.

And it is not surprising that the US and the EU have continued to provide money they know is being diverted by Hamas.

Hamas, like Fatah, has no interest in developing a Palestinian economy. Economic development doesn’t bring in the money. Terrorism does. Palestinians with economic freedom won’t be dependent on the likes of Abbas and his Hamas counterparts for their livelihoods. So they block all independent paths to prosperity.

Rather than build roads, the PA and Hamas pay people to kill Jews. The more Jews you kill, the more money you receive.

They can maintain this policy because the US and Europe pay them to do so. The more terrorism they commit, the more headlines the Palestinians receive. And the more headlines they receive, the more money they are paid by the UN and Western governments – to advance the cause of the “two-state solution.”

This then brings us to the US and Europe, and their unstinting support for Palestinian demands for the release of terrorists. What are they thinking? Earlier this month Prof. Eugene Kontorovich of Northwestern University Law School and the Kohelet Forum published a paper on the international community’s general interpretation of paragraph 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Protocol from 1949. The relevant clause states that an “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

As Kontorovich noted, this clause the forms the basis of the international community’s constant refrain that Israeli communities built beyond the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria are illegal.

In other words, it forms the basis of the West’s case against Israel and, by extraction, for the Palestinians’.

Just last week during his speech before the UN General Assembly, Obama attacked Israel for its continued settlement activity.

Kontorovich investigated the same international community’s view of communities built by citizens of a dozen other states in lands occupied by their governments in armed conflicts.

He noted that the activities of Moroccans in the Western Sahara, of Turks in Northern Cyprus, of Indonesians in East Timor and of other nationals in multiple other territories are legally indistinguishable from Israel’s activities in the areas it took control over from Jordan in the 1967 Arab-Israel war.

In none of these other cases, however, has the US, EU, UN or any other international or national authority ever invoked the Fourth Geneva Convention or otherwise claimed that those activities are a breach of international law. In other words, the legal basis for the criminalization and political condemnation of Israel in relation to the Palestinians is entirely specious and discriminatory.

In other words, US support for the so-called twostate solution, like the international community’s support for it, is really just a means of discriminating against Israel. It does not advance the cause of peace or justice, for Israelis or for Palestinians. It merely empowers terrorist gangsters to kill Israelis and extort both the Palestinians and the international community.

So again, Giuliani is absolutely right.

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Palestinians left wondering as Saudi paper takes Netanyahu’s side - Ben Lynfield

by Ben Lynfield

The editorial, published Sunday in the Saudi Gazette, seemed to depart in tone from the widely-held position in the Arab world that Israel is responsible for the impasse with the Palestinians.

A Saudi newspaper editorial that took issue with Palestinians for not responding positively to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s invitation last week to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to address the Knesset has touched off surprise and criticism from Palestinian leaders.

‘’Whoever wrote this editorial is totally unaware of the reality of this so-called invitation,’’ said PLO spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. “It is a very obvious public relations trick that’s been overused. If Netanyahu wants peace, let him abide by the requirements of international law, the two-state solution and the 1967 boundaries.’’

The editorial, published Sunday in the Saudi Gazette, a daily published in Jeddah that has a woman editor-in-chief, seemed to depart in tone from the widely-held position in the Arab world that Israel is responsible for the impasse with the Palestinians. It likened Netanyahu’s proposal that the two leaders address each other’s parliaments, to Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s 1977 invitation to Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to visit Israel, and implied it could also lead to a breakthrough. Begin made the invitation “and the rest is history,’’ the editorial said.

“For all its shortcomings, Camp David demonstrated that negotiations with Israel were possible and that progress could be made through sustained efforts at communication and cooperation,’’ it added.

As another example of how “official visits can bend the arc of history’’ the paper cited then-US President Bill Clinton’s 1998 visit to the Gaza Strip to address the Palestinian National Council on the day it deleted clauses calling for the destruction of Israel from the PLO charter.

The editorial said that Palestinians had rejected overtures from Netanyahu with the explanation that his hard-line position on all core issues made dialogue impossible.

“But the Palestinians should note that at that time, Egypt and Israel were mortal enemies having fought three wars.’’

The editorial went on to second guess the Arab world for rejecting Camp David, saying “in hindsight if the provisions had been carried out, Israel and the Palestinians might not be in the impasse they are at present.’’ Saudi Arabia was a leader of the Arab opposition to Camp David.

Ashrawi took issue with the analogy to Egyptian-Israeli peacemaking. “It’s not a question of Egypt and Israel, two countries that wanted to make peace, it’s a question of an occupying force that is destroying the other state and it’s about people under occupation who have no right and no power.’’

The editorial comes two months after a Saudi delegation of academics and businessmen, led by retired Saudi general Anwar Eshki, touched off criticism in the Arab world for openly visiting Israel and meeting with officials and MKs. There was speculation that the trip reflected a quiet development of discrete ties between the countries based largely on their having a common enemy, Iran.

Palestinians are wary that any normalization with Israel by Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries would represent a sellout of their cause and undermine their position vis-à-vis Israel.

Ashrawi said she thinks that “below the surface there are contacts [between Israel and Saudi Arabia] and all sorts of security considerations and Israel is positioning itself to be a regional power.’’ But she added: “No matter what happens, they won’t recognize or normalize with Israel because it hasn’t respected Palestinian rights and international law. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved things can move. Before that they might have secret contacts, but they can’t afford to lose their own constituency.’’

Former Palestinian Authority cabinet minister Ghassan Khatib termed the editorial “very strange and difficult to explain. I doubt this represents an official position,’’ added Khatib, who is vice president of Birzeit University.

“It’s not consistent with what we hear from them on the official lines. We know the political landscape in Saudi Arabia and the public opinion atmosphere. Looking at that, I find it difficult to believe that this is the official line.’’

In a separate development, a leading Saudi journalist has warned that the Syrian regime and its Russian and Iranian allies will exploit America’s preoccupation with the presidential election and then use the “lame duck’’ transition period before the new president enters the White House to “change the reality on the ground’’ in Syria and present the new president with a fait accompli.

Abdul-Rahman al-Rashed, former editor of the Saudi owned Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote in that newspaper that the Russians and the Syrian regime already perceive a vacuum in Washington, and that is why they are intensively bombing Aleppo, Syria’s largest city “without the slightest fear of an international reaction.’’

Last week’s bombing of a humanitarian aid convoy that killed 21 people should also be seen in that context, he wrote, and then predicted “more massacres and violations of international law in order to break what remains of the Syrian people’s resistance and change the map of the region.’’

The fall of Aleppo would be a major turning point in the war, making it easier for the regime to “destroy the remaining parts of the country,’’ Rashed wrote. The intensified Russian and Syrian military activity and fall of Aleppo would lead to a million more refugees heading to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, he added.

Al-Rashed criticized the Obama administration for lacking the resolve to face down the Russians and Iranians. “The hope is that the coming American president will be less committed towards the Iranians than the current president, and more courageous in facing the Iranian and Russian advance, not necessarily with a direct American military presence, but by allowing other countries to arm the opposition and offer succor to it with information and significant diplomatic support.’’

Ben Lynfield


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Existential dangers in Jordan - Dr. Efraim Herrera

by Dr. Efraim Herrera

In addition to this internal threat, Jordan is facing a clear and present threat along its border with Syria.

Until December 2015, Abu Salah was Islamic State's finance minister. An American airstrike turned him into a martyr. 

Nahed Hattar, a Christian Jordanian author, thought it was a good idea to post a cartoon to his Facebook page depicting Salah having fun with two virgins in heaven with Allah (God) himself standing at the entrance to the tent. In the cartoon, Abu Salah commands Allah to bring him wine (which is forbidden in Islam, but permitted to Muslims in heaven) and cashew nuts and to send someone in to clean the place, and reminds Allah to knock before coming in. 

That was enough for the Jordanian government to launch criminal proceedings against Hattar, but someone far less patient took matters into his own hands, assassinating the author outside a courthouse in Amman on Sunday.

The assassination highlights the overriding sentiment on the Jordanian street, despite the government's efforts to crack down on the Muslim Brotherhood and rig elections to keep the movement's representation to a minimum -- and still the Brotherhood apparently won 16 of the 130 seats in the Jordanian parliament this week. 

When elections are completely free, the outcome is different. In 2002, the Muslim Brotherhood won all 12 seats in the Jordanian Engineers Association. The Brotherhood's hatred of the Hashemite government is nothing new: Jordan is an artificial country, born from the San Remo conference in 1920, when control was handed to then-king of the Hejaz, Abdullah I bin al-Hussein, in exchange for his support of the British. He didn't last in power for very long and was murdered in Jerusalem, apparently at the behest of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Palestine. 

In addition to this internal threat, Jordan is facing a clear and present threat along its border with Syria. Several points along the border are under the control of Islamic State or its supporters. ISIS has denounced the Jordanian government as idolatrous and has declared it a religious duty to overthrow it. A Jordanian pilot was burned alive after falling captive to ISIS. The group justified the manner of execution, which is supposedly forbidden in Islam, with a Quranic verse requiring that an enemy be put to death in the same manner in which he has killed Muslims. The Jordanians are partners in the anti-ISIS coalition.

Along with the external threat posed by Islamic State and the internal threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, there is the imported threat -- in the form of around 1 million Syrian refugees joining a population of only 8 million. The Syrian refugees, save for a few thousand, have not been given work visas, and the economic aid promised by the West has been sparse at best. The result is a powder keg that also threatens the government. Meanwhile, because one of Islamic State's stated war strategies is to embed terrorist cells among these refugees, we can expect large terrorist attacks to take place soon in Jordan, which has already suffered two such attacks in the past year. 

Alongside all these threats is the demographic situation in the kingdom. The majority of the population is Palestinian, and only through government-imposed affirmative action are Bedouin tribal representatives able to remain in key positions.

Israel is certainly interested in the survival of King Abdullah's Jordan, which keeps the Islamists away from its eastern border, and will help the king in any way possible. The West, too, is enjoying its ability to bomb Islamic State from Jordanian air bases, and will continue supporting the kingdom. It is doubtful, however, that this help will suffice in the long run.

Dr. Ephraim Herrera is the author of "Jihad -- Fundamentals and Fundamentalism."


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Turkey: Land of Mosques, Prisons and the Uneducated - Burak Bekdil

by Burak Bekdil

A new study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development found that 43% of Turkish women aged between 15 and 29 were neither working nor receiving education.

  • "[I]n spite of dire predictions by secularists, the [ruling] AKP did not introduce conspicuous efforts to Islamize Turkey. But since 2011, this has changed." — Svante E. Cornell, in "The Islamization of Turkey: Erdogan's Education Reforms."
  • In 2014, Turkey's government introduced a scheme which forcibly enrolled about 40,000 students at Islamic "imam schools," and granted permission for girls as young as 10 to wear Islamic headscarves in class.
One way the rise of Islamist authoritarianism in a country can be seen is by the rise in the number of mosques, religious schools and prisons -- coupled with a sharp decline in the quality of education. Turkey is no exception.

Most recently, the Turkish government said that it would build 174 new prisons, increasing capacity by 100,000 convicts. This is Turkey's reply to complaints that six convicts must share a cell built for three. Convicts say they must sleep in turns in their bunk beds.

Before that, Turkey's government released nearly 40,000 convicted criminals, in order to make space for tens of thousands of suspects, including journalists, businessmen and academics, detained after the failed coup of July 15.

Turkish police and soldiers transport handcuffed military officers, who are accused of participating in the failed July 15 coup d'état. (Image source: Haber Turk video screenshot)

The other type of trendy building in Turkey is the mosque. Turkey's state-funded Directorate for Religious Affairs (Diyanet) has proudly announced that nearly 9,000 new mosques were built across the country between 2005 and 2015. The number of mosques in Turkey is estimated at around 90,000, or one mosque per 866 people. Iran, with a similar population to Turkey's [nearly 78 million] boasts just 48,000 mosques. In other words, Turkey has twice as many mosques as the Islamic Republic of Iran, for roughly the same population. Egypt, which has a population -- nearly 90 million -- bigger than Turkey's, has 67,000 mosques.

Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has not only been building mosques and prisons to further Islamize the country. He has also passionately been building religious schools [from which he once graduated]. He boasts that during his term as prime minister and president (since November 2002), the number of students enrolled at religious schools, officially called "imam schools," has risen from 60,000 to more than 1.2 million -- a 20-fold increase. In his study, "The Islamization of Turkey: Erdogan's Education Reforms," Svante E. Cornell wrote that:
"The growing efforts at Islamization of Turkish society have largely gone unnoticed. For many years, Islamization was the dog that did not bark: in spite of dire predictions by secularists, the [ruling] AKP did not introduce conspicuous efforts to Islamize Turkey. But since 2011, this has changed. The main exhibit is the education sector, which President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has remodeled to instill considerably more Islamic content, in line with his stated purpose to raise "pious generations". Ultimately, the Islamic overhaul of the education system is bound to have implications for Turkey's civilizational identity, and on the choices it will make on where it belongs politically."
In 2012, Erdogan's government introduced a contentious 12-year compulsory education system, paving the way for religious middle schools. In 2014, it introduced a scheme which forcibly enrolled about 40,000 students at imam schools. In some districts, imam schools were suddenly the only option for parents who could not afford private schooling. Also in 2014, the government granted permission for girls as young as 10 to wear Islamic headscarves in class.

So, where does Turkey's increasingly Islamist education stand after all those efforts? According to a report released this month by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Turkey is one of the countries with the lowest spending per student. Turkey's public spending for primary and secondary school education, and its spending per university student, were all below the OECD average. The OECD study also found that 43% of Turkish women aged between 15 and 29 were neither working nor receiving education. The OECD average for that group is 17%.

But it is not just about the quantitative findings; qualitative findings also point to an alarming education deficit in Turkey. In 2016, more than two million Turkish high school graduates took the annual national test to enroll at a post-secondary institution. According to the nationwide test results, the students scored an average 4.6 out of 40 questions in mathematics; 7.8 in science and 10.7 in humanities. Ironically, the test results show that the Turkish students do not even have adequate skills in their own language. The average score in Turkish was 19.1 out of 40.

This is the inevitable outcome of systematic Islamization of society in general, and of education in particular, over the past 14 years. The next 14 years will doubtless be far bleaker.

Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is a Turkish columnist for the Hürriyet Daily and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
There was an error in this gadget