Wednesday, March 29, 2017

White Liberals Attack Brown Islamic Dissidents - Giulio Meotti

by Giulio Meotti

"Thus the defenders of liberty are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims!" — Pascal Bruckner, Perlentaucher.

  • "[A] section of the Western left has adopted the ideology of the Salafists, Khomeinists and Islamists. It supports their blasphemy codes, and apologias for murder." — Nick Cohen, The Spectator.
  • "Thus the defenders of liberty are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims!" — Pascal Bruckner, Perlentaucher.
  • "It is putting bounties on the heads of Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, who are opposed to Muslim extremism (...) The document is simply an enemies' list, of the kind that fascists, Stalinists, and other totalitarian thinkers can't help producing." — Lee Smith, Tablet.
  • "Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy—punishable by death—to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era?" — Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wall Street Journal.
  • Most of the solidarity to French cartoonists under threat has come from even braver -- but ostracized -- Muslim intellectuals.
  • At the time of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the literary "Left" stood with the Muslim "anger", not with the persecuted writer -- while all around, translators and publishers were being killed and wounded by the Iranian murderers.
  • In the global struggle for the confrontation of ideas between the West and political Islam, too often the Western values are represented by Muslim dissidents and downplayed by the liberals who should be safeguarding them. It is an unpleasant spectacle.
  • "The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men. One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny. But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case". — Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
The French daily Le Figaro captured the tragic condition of Muslim dissidents: "Seen as 'traitors' by their communities, they are accused by the elites in the West of 'stigmatizing'".

Le Point called it "the malediction of the dissident": "For the European left, a bright danger threatens humanity. This is not terrorism or religious fundamentalism. But dissident intellectuals in the Muslim world".

This is the meaning of a recent list of fifteen "anti-Islamic extremists," published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Among them are, for example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch parliament and the most famous dissident from Islamic world, and Maajid Nawaz, a British Muslim who founded the Quilliam Foundation to fight radicalism, and who has been a consultant to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has attacked principled and courageous critics of radical Islamism such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali (left), a prominent ex-Muslim writer, and Maajid Nawaz (right), a moderate practising Muslim writer, radio host and politician. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)
Nick Cohen, in The Spectator, explained:
"in the liberal orientalist world view the only 'authentic' Muslim is a barbarian. A battery of insults fires on any Muslim who says otherwise. They are 'neo-conservatives,' 'native informants,' and 'Zionists': they are as extreme as jihadists they oppose, or, let's face it, worse..."
In short, according with Cohen, "a section of the Western left has adopted the ideology of the Salafists, Khomeinists and Islamists. It supports their blasphemy codes, and apologias for murder".

The Wall Street Journal, in an unsigned editorial, attacked the report of the Southern Poverty Law Center: that "as if facing down violent Islamist fanatics isn't enough, Muslim reformers now have to dodge attacks from the American left".

Lee Smith, in Tablet, noted:
"Yet now, the SPLC is putting bounties on the heads of Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, who are opposed to Muslim extremism... The document is simply an enemies' list, of the kind that fascists, Stalinists, and other totalitarian thinkers can't help producing".
Nick Cohen called it "the first fatwa of the white left". But it is not the first. That horrible document belongs to the long "flight of the intellectuals" denounced by Paul Berman: the abandonment of Enlightenment values in the face of threats to freedom of expression.

"It is time to extend our solidarity to all the rebels of the Islamic world, non-believers, atheist libertines, dissenters, sentinels of liberty, as we supported Eastern European dissidents in former times", French writer Pascal Bruckner said. Most of Western liberals are doing exactly the opposite. Not only are they refusing "to extend our solidarity" to these rebels; instead, they are actually targeting them.

The Director of the Middle East-Mediterranean chair at the Ecole Normale Superieure, and professor at Sciences-Po, Gilles Kepel , just published a book, Fracture, in which he blasts "the intellectuals paralyzed by postcolonial guilt" and the "blindness which leads them to minimize the jihadist risk". It is what Kepel in the book calls "Islamo-Leftism" ("Islamo-Gauchisme"), which currently targets Muslim dissidents to exclude them from the debate.

The debate reminds one that during the Cold War, when the Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the author of The Gulag Archipelago, was attacked by fellow writers such as Pablo Neruda, a Nobel Prize for Literature laureate and devout communist.

In 2006, a group of 12 writers put their names to a statement in the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, warning against Islamic "totalitarianism". "After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global totalitarian threat: Islamism", read the appeal. "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all". Among the 12 promoters, eight came from the Islamic world. Most of the solidarity to French cartoonists under threat has come from even braver -- but ostracized -- Muslim intellectuals. In the global struggle for the confrontation of ideas between the West and political Islam, too often the Western values are represented by Muslim dissidents and downplayed by the liberals who should be safeguarding them. It is an unpleasant spectacle.

And what was Islamo-Leftism doing? Busy targeting them. Timothy Garton Ash, a leftist opinion-maker, has asked how much the success of Ayaan Hirsi Ali depends on her beauty, and has defined her "an Enlightenment fundamentalist": "It's no disrespect to Ms. Ali to suggest that if she had been short, squat, and squinting, her story and views might not be so closely attended to".

Similar criticism against Hirsi Ali came from Ian Buruma, a Dutch "radical chic" journalist transplanted to Manhattan's Upper West Side. Ibn Warraq, another Muslim dissident isolated by the Left, attacked Buruma: "Disgraceful has been Buruma's vilification of human rights activists, especially his attacks on such heroic figures as Afshin Ellian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali". Buruma achieves his goals in a most insidious manner: hinting and insinuating.

In the German magazine, Perlentaucher, the French author Pascal Bruckner defended Hirsi Ali from the criticism of Buruma and Garton Ash:
"It's not enough that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live like a recluse, threatened with having her throat slit by radicals and surrounded by bodyguards. She -- like the French philosophy professor Robert Redeker who has also been issued death threats on Islamicist websites -- has to endure the ridicule of the high-minded idealists and armchair philosophers. She has even been called a Nazi in the Netherlands. Thus the defenders of liberty are styled as fascists, while the fanatics are portrayed as victims! ... It is her wilful, short-fused, enthusiastic, impervious side to which Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash object, in the spirit of the inquisitors who saw devil-possessed witches in every woman too flamboyant for their tastes".
Geert Mak, a Dutch historian, likened the film "Submission", written by Hirsi Ali, and which cost the life of the Dutch filmmaker, Theo van Gogh, to the Nazi propaganda film, "The Eternal Jew". According to Mak's "logic", Hirsi Ali "stigmatized" Muslims as Joseph Goebbels did Jews. Leon de Winter rightly attacked Mak's shameful comparison in a column for Volkskrant newspaper:
"If anything can be compared with the propaganda of Goebbels, these are the decapitation videos and anti-Semitic propaganda of Arab satellite stations in Amsterdam West. Mak turns the world upside down. Anne Frank has been abused enough".
The "Index on Censorship", in an article by the associate director of the magazine, Rohan Jayasekera, has painted Hirsi Ali as a silly girl who had allowed herself to be manipulated by a white man (van Gogh) in exploitative employment". The Index on Censorship was founded in 1972 by Stephen Spender in response to a plea from Soviet dissidents facing show trials in Moscow, on the principle that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that the international community has a duty to safeguard. What would people have said of his organization if it had blamed those Soviet writers instead of their persecutors?

Two years ago, Hirsi Ali was even uninvited from Brandeis University, one of the cradles of American academic liberalism that was supposed to celebrate her with an honorary degree. 85 of 350 professors at the Massachusetts university refused to host such a speaker on the Third World and Islam. If one reads what Hirsi Ali would have said on campus that day, the leftist fear of Hirsi Ali it is understandable:
"We need to make our universities temples not of dogmatic orthodoxy, but of truly critical thinking, where all ideas are welcome and where civil debate is encouraged.... I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight. The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect. So I ask: Is the concept of holy war compatible with our ideal of religious toleration? Is it blasphemy — punishable by death — to question the applicability of certain seventh-century doctrines to our own era?"
Dissident ex-Muslims from the Islamic world, who have fled to the West to escape persecution and sectarianism, also see their hosts are "going soft" on their persecutors. A motion in the European Parliament to fund Hirsi Ali's U.S. security failed to reach a quorum of half the deputies in the 785-member body. She was "abandoned to the fanatics" in Europe's shameful capitulation to intimidation and threats.

Directors, actors, producers, writers, and film critics, who usually pontificate on everything and side with any minority, all stood silent when Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam and threats were made against his brave writer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

In the last few months, we have seen many Western feminists, especially on the "left", standing in defense of burkini. The New York Times ran an article entitled: "At the beach with my burkini". It is the burkini and the veil, that have become symbols of human rights, and not Hirsi Ali and other Muslim feminists who fight against these religious symbols coerced on women. For many feminists and liberals, submission is demanded only by white male Christian westerners. All minorities, such as Islamic dissidents, who face this enemy are considered provocateurs. Submission of women in the Islamic world? Female mutilation such as that suffered by Hirsi Ali? Much better to rally against Dominique Strauss Khan, the French Socialist sexual predator. Hirsi Ali criticized the Western feminist silence:
"The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men. One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny. But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case".
When mullahs in Iran placed a bounty of $2.8 million -- recently raised by an additional $600,000 -- on the head of a British citizen, the Muslim dissident, Salman Rushdie, for having written a novel, The Satanic Verses, a large part of London's literary "left" sided with the Ayatollah Khomeini rather than the persecuted writer. The feminist writer Germaine Greer called Rushdie a "megalomaniac, an Englishman with dark skin". Roald Dahl, the bestselling author of children's books, defined him a "dangerous opportunist". The king of the literary spy stories, John Le Carré, called Rushdie an "idiot". At the time of the fatwa, the literary "Left" stood with the Muslim "anger", not with the persecuted writer - while all around, translators and publishers were being killed and wounded by the Iranian murderers.

The Algerian writer, Kamel Daoud, in addition to the edicts of Islamic preachers in his country, had to face a far more sinuous menace in France a year ago. Daoud had the courage to break the taboo against criticizing Cologne's sexual attacks. According to Daoud, Europe welcomes immigrants with visas and material sustenance, but without addressing values. What Cologne showed, says Daoud, is how sex is "the greatest misery in the world of Allah".

First, twenty leftist academics launched an appeal in Le Monde, where Daoud was accused of a series of ideological crimes, such as "orientalist clichés", "essentialism", "psychologizing", "colonialist paternalism", which correspond, all together, to an accusation of "racism" and "Islamophobia". Then a book entitled "Kamel Daoud the Enquête Contre" -- signed by Ahmed Bensaada and with a preface of a French journalist, Jacques-Marie Bourget -- attacked "these intellectuals in North Africa, who are auxiliaries of the French neo-conservative thinkers" who need "the good negro", a "native alibi". Daoud was accused of being an instrument of "neo-colonialist thought".

"The process of Islamophobia against Kamel Daoud is worthy of the Stalinist era", wrote at Le Figaro political scientist Laurent Bouvet. In the weekly, Le Point Étienne Gernelle attacked "the fools of the regressive left". Rafik Chekkat called Daoud a "native informant", while Olivier Roy, an Islamic scholar, in an article accused Daoud of stigmatizing Muslims: "The machismo and sexual harassment exist all over the world, why isolating this phenomenon among Muslims, instead of trying to counteract all forms? Just because they are Muslims". A great number of articles in the French press attacked Daoud.

The same treatment was reserved for the deputy editor at the time of Italy's largest daily, Il Corriere della Sera, the Egyptian journalist Magdi Allam. He was targeted in an appeal signed by two hundred intellectuals, historians and writers, all belonging to the cultural milieu. Allam has also recently been attacked as a "racist" by the liberal Democratic Party in an Italian town which had wanted to honor him with the honorary citizenship:
"They imply that I have a prejudice against immigrants or Muslims and this corresponds to an offense because we speak of racism. I reminded them that I was a true Italian immigrant for reasons of study. They represent me as a terrorist but I am a victim of terrorism and of those who sow intolerance: I have been living under guard escort for 14 years".
This cowardly interdiction of Muslim liberal voices in the West went ahead with Maryam Namazie, another Islamic intellectual of Iranian origin, was "disinvited" from the University of Warwick, in England, because her lecture could "feed the Islamophobia". The left-wing press, led by The Guardian, supported the exclusion of Namazie:
"Does the withdrawal of an invitation really amount to censorship? Her words have not been banned, the state has not gagged her. Is Namazie's capacity to share her ideas diminished if she doesn't appear in front of 50-odd students? After all, she can still tweet and blog, as she showed over the weekend. If anything, the whole episode has increased her audience".
Duke University students tried to stop the talk of another Islamic dissident, Asra Nomani, author of "Standing Alone". In France, the book of the Egyptian writer, Hamed Abdel-Samad, was taken off the market because, according to the self-censoring publisher, Piranha, it would bring "water to the mill of the extreme right". A Muslim author denouncing "Islamic fascism" was repudiated by the fascist anti-fascist "leftists" because of false "Islamophobia" claims.

Self-righteous liberals love "moderate Islam" when it appears under the guise of Tariq Ramadan, whose goal has been summed up by Jacques Jomier: "His problem is not the modernization of Islam, but the Islamification of modernity". But the same liberals target as agents provocateurs those dissidents trying to modernize Islam. The fatwas of the white liberals hit hard as the violent ones of the Muslim extremists.
Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Ten Toxic Terms Pro-Israel Advocates Must Fight - Lee Bender

by Lee Bender

Mainstream Western media coverage of Israel is laced with expressions intentionally crafted to delegitimize the Jewish State.

Mainstream Western media coverage of Israel is laced with expressions intentionally crafted to delegitimize the Jewish State. The good news is that these terms weren’t written in stone 3,300 years ago, but are post-Israel independence creations. By forfeiting this language, we forfeit our history. Here are 10 phrases we must stop repeating:

#1- “The West Bank” – No, it’s not. “Judea and Samaria” are not just “biblical names,” but the names the hill country of Israel was known by from ancient times, including in the U.N.’s 1947 partition resolution, until after Transjordan invaded in 1948 (and was ousted by Israel in 1967) and named it such to disassociate its inherent Jewish connection.

#2 – “East” or “traditionally Arab East” Jerusalem: Jerusalem has been the capital of three homeland states, all Jewish, in the past 3,000 years, and has had a renewed Jewish majority since 1800’s Ottoman rule.  Palestinian Arabs have never ruled any part of Jerusalem. There was no such place as “East” Jerusalem until invading Jordan seized the historical heart of the city in 1948 and expelled its Jews; until then it had never been a divided city. The eastern section of the city is where the Old City, Jewish Quarter, Temple Mount, Mount of Olives cemetery, Christian Quarter and Church of the Holy Sepulcre are located. Jerusalem is Judaism's holiest city; it is not holy to Muslims and is not mentioned once in the Qu’ran.   Only since Israel reunified the city has there been equal rights and access to religious sites of all faiths. Say rather: Jerusalem, period

#3 – “The UN sought to create Jewish and Palestinian States:” It did not. Over and over in its 1947 partition resolution, the UN referenced “the Jewish State” and “the Arab” [not “Palestinian”] State. There are 22 independent Arab states.

#4– “Palestinian Refugees of the War that Followed Israel’s Creation,” or the “Palestinian Refugee Issue:” This suggests that an indigenous population of Arab “Palestinians” was unilaterally displaced by the 1948 five-Arab-state- army invasion for Israel’s destruction, which encouraged and ordered local Arabs to leave. Much forgotten is that more Jews were consequently expelled from vast Arab lands they had lived in for many centuries (850,000- 900,000) than Arabs left tiny Israel (500,000- 650,000). 

#5 – Israel “Seized” Arab Lands in 1967: It did not. Israel captured these territories in a defensive war from Arabs who vowed to destroy her. Israel has greater historic legal claims and rights to these lands.

#6 – Israel’s “1967 Borders:” The 1949 Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement expressly declared the “green line” it drew between the two sides’ ceasefire positions as a military ceasefire line only, and not a political border. The post-’67 war U.N. Resolution 242 pointedly does not demand Israel retreat from these lines.

#7 – “Israeli-Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem:” No. The 1920 League of Nations Palestine Mandate recognized the Jewish people’s right to reconstitute its Jewish National Home in Palestine (including Judea and Samaria, and what ultimately became Jordan), and called for close settlement of the Jews on this land, where Jews have continuously lived, claiming it as their homeland, for three thousand years. At worst, the legal status is disputed, not “occupied” or “Palestinian” territories.

#8 – “Jewish Settlers and Settlements” vs. “Palestinian Residents of Neighborhoods and Villages:” Jews are not alien “settlers” implying "occupiers" in a Jerusalem that’s had a Jewish majority since mid-19th century or in the Judea-Samaria Jewish historical heartland. Israelis living there are residents who live in cities, towns and villages.

#9 – “Palestinians accept and Israel rejects a Two-State Solution:” Wrong on both counts. The U.S. and Israel define "Two States" as two states for two peoples – Jews and Arabs. Many Israelis, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, support that plan – conditioned on an end to Palestinian terror. The Arabs have rejected a Palestinian Arab state living side-by-side with a Jewish state five times since 1937, and continuously deny Israel’s right to exist no matter where its borders are drawn. 

#10 – “The Palestinians:”   During the Mandate, “Palestinian” typically referred to Palestine’s Jews.  The UN’s 1947 partition resolution called Palestine’s Jews and its Arabs “the two Palestinian peoples.” Palestinian Arabs – ancestrally, culturally, linguistically and religiously are akin to neighboring regional Arabs – began claiming exclusive “Palestinian peoplehood” only in the 1960s.  Post-1967 war UN resolution 242 does not mention “Palestinians.” Most Palestinian Arabs cannot trace their own lineage to the land back more than 4 generations.

Lee Bender is the co-President, and Jerome Verlin is the co-Vice Present of the Zionist Organization of America-Greater Philadelphia District, and they are the co-authors of the book Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z” (Pavilion Press) and co-developers of the website and mobile app,


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A Test For King Abdullah - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Time to extradite a remorseless killer of American citizens.

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

Ahlam Tamimi is a mass murdering monster.

And today she is living the good life, as a “journalist,” inciting jihad in Jordan under the protection of the King Abdullah.

On August 9, 2001, in the service of Hamas, Tamimi led a suicide bomber to the Sbarro Pizzeria in central Jerusalem. It was summer vacation. The streets were filled with children and parents.

Sbarro was filled with children and their parents.

Tamimi had scouted out the location of the bombing ahead of time. She chose Sbarro because it was a popular destination for families with young kids.

Tamimi brought the bomber to the restaurant. His bomb, hidden in a guitar case, weighed 5-10 kilos. It was surrounded by nails to puncture the flesh and internal organs of the victims, maximizing their pain and bodily damage.

Fifteen people, including seven young children and a pregnant woman were killed in the blast.

Another 130 were wounded. Chana Nachenberg, today 47, was 31 at the time. She was torn apart by the blast, only to survive, hospitalized in a vegetative state ever since.

Tamimi was sentenced to 16 consecutive life sentences and 15 more years in prison for her crime.

She was released in 2011 as part of the ransom deal Hamas coerced the government to accept to secure the freedom of IDF Sgt. Gilad Schalit. Schalit had been held hostage and incommunicado by Hamas in Gaza since he was abducted from Israel in 2006.

Tamimi, like the other thousand terrorists she was freed with, was not pardoned. Israel’s release was a conditional commutation. The terrorists were freed on condition that they did not engage in either terrorism or incitement of terrorism subsequent to their release.

Dozens of terrorists released under the Schalit ransom deal have been returned to prison to serve out the remainders of the terms over the past five years due to their violation of those conditions.

Immediately upon her release, Tamimi began violating the terms of her commutation by inciting terrorism.

She has been able to avoid returning to jail to serve out the remainder of her sentence because she decamped to Jordan.

From the safety of King Abdullah’s capital city Amman, Tamimi has worked as host of a television program on Hamas’s television station. Hamas television, which exists for the explicit purpose of inciting terrorism and indoctrinating viewers to become jihadists, operates openly in Jordan, as does Hamas.

Indeed, in 2011 King Abdullah decided to embrace the jihadist terrorist group that controls Gaza and is allied with Islamic State and Iran. Hamas leaders have frequently visited Jordan in recent years and the terrorist group is able to openly operate in the kingdom.

Since her release, Tamimi has given countless interviews and as traveled through much of the Arab world, celebrating her act of mass murder. She has said repeatedly that she would commit her children’s massacre again if she could.

Three of Tamimi’s victims were American citizens.

Malki Roth was 15 when she was killed. Shoshana Yehudit (Judy) Greenbaum was 31 and five months pregnant.

Nachenberg is also a US citizen.

Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice unsealed a 2013 indictment of Tamimi regarding her role in the murder of US citizens. The Justice Department officially requested that the government of Jordan extradite Tamimi to the US to face trial.

The US signed an extradition treaty with Jordan in 1995. But, as Malki Roth’s father Arnold Roth wrote last week in a blog post regarding the extradition request, since 1997, Jordan has claimed that the agreement was not ratified by the Jordanian parliament.

Based on this claim, two courts in Jordan, including the supreme court of appeals, rejected the US extradition request claiming that it would be unconstitutional to respect it.

Roth scoffed at the argument, noting that in Jordan, the notion of constitutionality is entirely arbitrary.

In his words, “In a monarchy where the king changes prime ministers and governments more often than some presidents change their suits, there’s an inherent problem with paying so much respectful attention to a constitution. Jordanian law, and what is legal and illegal depends on one individual. If [King Abdullah] wanted to extradite her [Tamimi], she would be in the US today.”

And this brings us to Abdullah, and what he wants.

Last week, this column discussed the hero’s welcome that Ahmad Dagamseh received when he returned home from prison. Dagamseh, a former Jordanian soldier, was released this month from Jordanian prison after serving a 20-year term for murdering seven Israeli schoolgirls at the so-called Island of Peace in the Jordan Valley in 1997.

After the column was published, Mudar Zahran, a Palestinian Jordanian ex-patriot and regime opponent who serves as the secretary general of the Jordanian Opposition Coalition wrote to me to highlight the fact that Dagamseh’s release was widely and exuberantly covered by media organs controlled by King Abdullah.

Zahran wrote that an official envoy of Jordan’s Interior Ministry Ghaleb Zohbi greeted Dagamseh at the prison upon his release and that Dagamseh was driven from jail to his village in a Mercedes flanked by a convoy of police cruisers.

Zahran added that the standard practice is for released prisoners to be taken home in a police wagon.

In a subsequent email exchange, Zahran set out his case for replacing the Hashemite minority regime with a Palestinian majority regime.

Zahran argued that the number of refugees in Jordan has been purposely inflated, and that the massive Palestinian majority in the population has not been significantly degraded by the refugee flows from Iraq and Syria over the past decade and a half.

According to his data, which he contends is supported by US embassy in Amman cables published by Wikileaks, there are 6.1 million Palestinians in Jordan. The kingdom is host to 750,000 Syrian and Iraqi refugees.

Zahran accused King Abdullah of deliberately fanning the flames of antisemitism and anti-Americanism among the Jordanian public in order to make himself appear indispensable to Israel and the West.

Dagamseh’s celebrated release, like the regime’s protection of Tamimi and its willingness to permit her to continue to incite jihad against Israel from Amman are examples of this practice.

Abdullah’s notion, Zahran argues, persuasively, is that by giving a microphone to jihadists, Abdullah convinces Israel and the US that they cannot afford to allow anything to happen to him or to his minority regime.

So convinced, Israel and the US say nothing as Abdullah stacks his parliament with Muslim Brotherhood members. They voice no objection as Abdullah empowers Hamas, gives safe haven to terrorist murderers of Israelis and Americans, and rejects extradition requests on fictional constitutional grounds that he himself concocted.

Zahran, who seeks to replace the Hashemites with a Palestinian majority regime, which would allow Jordan to serve as the national home of the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, argues that Jordan is a state run by the military and intelligence services, which themselves are controlled by the US military’s Central Command.

In his words, Jordanian forces cannot “relocate an armored vehicle” without first getting “permission from US Central Command.”

Zahran’s vision of a post-Hashemite Jordan is interesting. He envisions the US continuing to have overall control of Jordan’s security forces. The new regime would liberalize the economy and stop jihadist incitement while actually targeting jihadists rather than coddling them.

The regime for which he advocates would be dominated by the long-discriminated-against Palestinian majority. It would work with Israel to solve its conflict with the Palestinians. Zahran’s Jordan would restore Jordanian citizenship to the Palestinians of Judea and Samaria and give them voting rights in Jordan.

It is hard to know whether Zahran’s vision of Jordan is a viable one. Certainly it sounds a lot better than what we experience with Abdullah. And it deserves serious consideration.

By the same token, it is time for the US and Israel to test Abdullah, the moderate man we cannot do without.

The first test should be an ultimatum. Abdullah should be told that he must either extradite Tamimi to the US for trial or send her back to Israel to serve the remainder of her sentence. If he refuses, then either Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or US President Donald Trump, or both, should meet publicly with Zahran to discuss his vision for the future of Jordan.

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.

Israeli Air Force holding joint exercises with United Arab Emirates, Italy, Greece, and US - Thomas Lifson

by Thomas Lifson

Arab potentates have discovered that Persian Shiites are an actual offensive threat, while Israel’s desire for peaceful existence is not.

It is a new era in the Middle East, with Arab anti-Israel solidarity a thing of the past. Arab potentates have discovered that Persian Shiites are an actual offensive threat, while Israel’s desire for peaceful existence is not. While it is common knowledge in the Middle East that on a de facto basis Israel is cooperating with Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, in addition to existing and open relations with Egypt and Jordan, until now there has been very little overt acknowledgement and recognition.

But this military patch for the INIOHOS 2017 joint training exercise underway on Greece openly and tangibly displays Israel’s flag next to those of the US, Greece, Italy, and the United Arab Emirates. 

Haaretz reports:
The Israel Air Force began a joint exercise on Monday in Greece that included dozens of aircraft from foreign armies. Dubbed Iniohos 2017, an official report for the Greek air force noted that the air forces of Israel, the United States, the United Arab Emirates and Italy participated in the exercise. The training patch for the exercise includes the flags of the countries along with the slogan "Act with Awareness."
The Iniohos 2017 exercise is due to be wrapped up next Thursday. Photos from the past several days show F-16 aircraft from the United Arab Emirates alongside an American Air Force transport plane at the Greek air force base. The American army reported that it had dispatched 12 F-16C airplanes and close to 220 crew members to participate in the exercise. The joint exercise, according to a U.S. army report, is strengthening ties among the participating countries, maintain[ing] joint readiness and interoperability," the news release stated.
The Mad Mullahs of Tehran have managed to supercharge the process of reconciliation between the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors, a process that is now robust enough that it can be openly acknowledged and commemorated.

This isn’t the first time for joint Israeli-Emerati exercises. Last August’s Red Flag training mission, was an “aerial combat training exercise in Nevada which [had] the participation of the air forces of Israel, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Spain, in addition to the United States.” But this time around, it is a step more open and officially recognized.

Hat tip: Tom Gross

Thomas Lifson


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

When the Law Opposes the Truth Rather Than Protects It - Douglas Murray

by Douglas Murray

On Thursday of last week, the Canadian Parliament voted through a blasphemy law specifically designed to protect Islam

  • Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by?
  • Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim?
  • Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?
The Canadian government suffers from many things. Among them is bad timing.

On Thursday of last week, the Canadian Parliament voted through a blasphemy law specifically designed to protect Islam. As Al-Jazeera was happy to report on Friday, the previous day's vote condemned "Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination." The non-binding motion that the Parliament passed also requested that a Parliamentary committee should launch a study to look at how to "develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia". The motion passed by 201 votes to 91.

It is just as well for those 201 Canadian legislators that they were debating all this in their distinguished national Parliament rather than the mother of all Parliaments. For had these legislators been in the House of Commons in Westminster, their thoughts may have taken on a sharper focus.

For one day earlier, the British House of Commons lived through an example of rampant Islamism rather than "Islamophobia". And although nobody in Westminster decided to turn into a crazy Muslim-hating bigot, they did manage to see what a hateful Muslim bigot could do when armed with the simple weapons of a knife and a motor vehicle.

The Canadian Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who introduced the motion in Canada, proclaimed that the introduction of a de facto Islamic blasphemy law in Canada was needed because "We need to continue to build those bridges among Canadians, and this is just one way that we can do this." Hours before she said that, one of Khalid's co-religionists was using a bridge built more than a hundred and fifty years earlier for a very different purpose.

Khalid Masood of Birmingham chose to use an older bridge to drive at high speed into crowds of Londoners and tourists. On his rampage, he managed to injure people from 11 countries. He succeeded in killing Kurt Cochran, an American on holiday in London with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. He also killed Aysha Frade, a British national of Spanish and Cypriot descent who had been walking across Westminster Bridge to pick up her two young daughters from school. He also killed Leslie Rhodes, a 75-year old retired window-cleaner, described by a neighbour, who sat at his bedside in hospital as he died, as "the nicest man you ever met."

After this carnage, so similar to the vehicle attacks in recent years in Germany, Israel and France, the 52-year old Khalid Masood ran at the Houses of Parliament and stabbed to death Police Constable Keith Palmer, 48. As all this unfolded, the Houses of Parliament in Westminster were put into lockdown. As with the Islamist attack on the Parliament building at Ottawa in 2014, the assailant got disturbingly close to the very centre of power in the land before being shot dead.

After deliberately driving a car into crowds of people in London last week, Khalid Masood crashed the vehicle into the fence surrounding Parliament, and stabbed a police officer to death. (Image source: Sky News video screenshot)

So, we come to the central problem of what the Canadian Parliament did at the same time that the British Parliament was being assaulted. What are we allowed to say about this? Or at least what would we be allowed to say in Canada?

So far, we know that the perpetrator of the London attack was a 52-year old convert to Islam who appeared to have been influenced by Wahhabism, but whose particular aims or intentions remain, for the time-being, unknown. Unlike the murderers of British soldier Lee Rigby in 2013 (one of whom carried on his person a note to his children with numerous Quranic references explaining why he was doing what he was doing, and why it was right) Khalid Masood appears to have left no note. Nor has any suicide-video yet emerged.

But it is not unreasonable to speculate that he was motivated or inspired by ISIS. The group has claimed his attack for their side of the terror ledger and the style of the attack certainly conforms to the type called for by the group. But beyond this, what are we allowed to say? Or what would we be allowed to say in Canada?

Would we be allowed to ask who ISIS are inspired by? The question must linger. It must be hovering over the mind of many a Canadian journalist as they ponder the terrorist attacks that have previously taken place in their country and wonder how they would go about reporting an attack such as that in Westminster last week.

Would they be allowed to say that the perpetrator was a Muslim? Would they be allowed to say that he was a convert? Would they be allowed to mention the Wahhabi point? Or would this tread into the realm of the "Islamophobia". Let us assume that they would be allowed to mention these things in print. Would they be allowed to go any farther? Would they be allowed to ponder in opinion columns or quote people in reportage who said that Masood and indeed ISIS had not got their ideas from nowhere? Would they be allowed to say that there is a tradition of violence within the Islamic religion, which has sadly permitted just such actions for a rather long time. Or would they have to lie?

History suggests that when the law makes it illegal to tell the truth, a reliable portion of people can be called upon to lie. So it has been in the past. And so it will be with Canada. So it would be anywhere once the law became an opponent of truth rather than the protector of it.

Thanks to the Canadian Parliament and their lack of curiosity about a deeply opaque but ambitious word ("Islamophobia"), the Canadian press and public will have to stop certain inquiries into the truth about the events of our time. Who -- apart from the good legislators of Canada -- could possibly believe that the world will benefit from such censoring? And at such a time as this? To adopt a well-known expression: those whom the gods would destroy they first make ignorant.

Douglas Murray, British author, commentator and public affairs analyst, is based in London, England.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

Bedouin soldier: You don't know anything about Israel - David Rosenberg

by David Rosenberg

Bedouin man who served in IDF tours US to show how little anti-Israel Jews know about the Jewish state.

Bedouin soldier turned Israel advocate Muhammad Kabiya
Bedouin soldier turned Israel advocate Muhammad Kabiya
Courtesy of Muhammad Kabiya
As anti-Israel – and increasingly, anti-Semitic – elements on college campuses have become more vocal, more active, and more provocative on college campuses around the US, pro-Israel activists are working to combat the hatred and misinformation found at so many institutions across the country.

One recently demobilized IDF soldier decided to join the fight on behalf of Israel abroad after hearing how hostile many college campuses have become towards supporters of the Jewish state.

Muhammad Kabiya, an Israeli Bedouin who recently completed his service in the IDF on a search and rescue team in the Israeli Air Force, says critics of the Jewish state abroad display a remarkable ignorance of Israel – particularly the anti-Israel Jews he encountered on US college campuses.

Raised in the village of Kabiya, which was named after his family, Muhammad Kabiya comes from a long line of Bedouin who supported Israel and the Zionist enterprise. His village was one of Arab communities in Israel which backed the newly-formed Jewish state in 1948 and fought on its behalf.

Many villagers and relatives have served in the IDF, said Kabiya, who told United With Israel that his family fully supported his decision to enlist.

“My family sacrificed three soldiers in Israel’s battles,” Kabiya said.

After finishing his service in the IDF, Kabiya continued his work on behalf of Israel, becoming an IDF consultant and pro-Israel activist.

Earlier this year, Kabiya had a speaking tour of college campuses in the US, defending Israel, in Arabic, from Arab detractors, and teaching anti-Israel Jews just how little they know about the Jewish state. The tour was sponsored by the StandWithUs Israel education organization, and was called Between The Lines: Voices from Israel - Stories Untold.

“People don’t know anything about what goes on here [in Israel],” Kabiya told Channel 10. “I’m defending the image of the state that they are trying to destroy.”

“When I arrived for an address, ‘Israel Apartheid Week’ had just started. I confronted Jewish students who claimed that Zionism is racism. I told them that they should be embarrassed. I, Muhammad, an Israeli-Arab, was the one who needed to go out and confront anti-Israel Jews. It drove them nuts.”

“On the first day [of the speaking tour] a Jewish student gave me a flyer for an address which claimed ‘Zionism is racism’,” said Kabiya. “I told him ‘you should be ashamed of yourself’, you don’t need to be working with groups whose goal is to spread hatred and lies against the State of Israel, against your state, the state of the Jews – and I’m telling you that as an Israeli Arab.”

Kabiya isn’t the only Arab working to combat anti-Israel bias in the US; earlier this week Sandra Solomon, joined other pro-Israel activists in a counter-demonstration outside of the AIPAC conference in Washington, challenging an anti-Israel protest organized by IfNotNow, an anti-Zionist Jewish group organized by former Sanders campaign staffer Simone Zimmerman.

A Canadian human rights activist born in Samaria and raised in Saudi Arabia, Solomon has received death threats for her work against the spread of radical Islam in Canada and her pro-Israel message.

“I am Palestinian, but I stand with Israel”, Solomon said at the counter-demonstration. “We are the Arabs. We occupy the land of the Jews. This Jewish land. It’s going to be there for ever and ever. I used to be a Muslim. They taught me to hate Israel and the Jewish people. There is no Palestine. It’s a lie. They are using Palestine just to kill the Jewish people. Just to hate the Jews. They teach me to ‘purify al-Aqsa mosque from the filthy Jews’. Palestinians are liars.”

David Rosenberg


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

The Triangle of Moscow, Tehran and Jerusalem - Joseph Puder

by Joseph Puder

Russia finds itself having to make a choice between Iran and Israel.

Earlier this month, Prime Minister (PM) Benjamin Netanyahu flew to Moscow for a meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.  In a statement prior to his meeting with Putin, Netanyahu praised the Russian leader for his contribution and the significant progress made in the fight against the radical Sunni Islamic terrorism of the Islamic State (IS) and Al Qaida.  The thrust of Netanyahu’s statement was that Israel does not want to see radical Sunni jihadist terrorism replaced by Iran’s radical Shiite terrorism.

Russia finds itself being pursued by two bitter enemies: Iran and Israel.  Russia has clearly staked its credibility, and invested its resources including its air-power, in keeping its ally, President Bashar Assad of Syria, in power.  Iran likewise, has a stake in keeping an ally (Bashar Assad) who happens to be a member of the Alawi sect (a Shiite breakaway sect), a minority among Syria’s Sunni majority, in power.  Tehran is also seeking to maintain its controlling influence in Damascus (Syria), and Beirut (in addition to the more remote Baghdad and Sanaa), both [of] which border the Jewish state.

For Israel, however, Iran’s meddling in Syria and its efforts to establish itself on the border of Israel, through its terrorist-client Hezbollah, poses a serious if not an existential threat.  Avi Dichter, the chair of Israel's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said Iran had tried several times in the past to move forces into the Golan Heights, next to territory that Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East war. Netanyahu has said that Israel has carried out dozens of strikes to prevent weapons smuggling to the Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah via Syria. Two years ago, Israel and Russia agreed to coordinate military actions over Syria in order to avoid accidentally trading fire.

The triangle that has been formed between Russia, Iran, and Israel puts the Kremlin in a precarious position. While Iran is trying to expand its foothold in Syria, Israeli missiles are targeting Iranian shipments of weapons to Hezbollah, on Syrian soil.  Hence, Russia is walking on a tight rope between the two sworn enemies.  Eventually, Moscow will be compelled to choose, albeit, it will not be an easy choice. Israel is considered by the Russians as an important state in economic terms, culture, and to some degree, for political reasons.

According to the Washington Institute’s Anna Borshchevskaya, “The two countries have an agreement on visa-free tourist travel for their citizens. Israel is home to over a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union, which bolsters Russia's ties to Israel.  Russian is the third most popular language in Israel after Hebrew and English.  Economic relations between the two countries have especially improved, exceeding $3 billion in 2014, a figure slightly higher than Russia's trade with Egypt the same year. Military relations improved as well. Indeed, in late 2015, according to press reports, Israel sold ten search drones to Russia, despite Israel's concerns about Russia's military and political ties to Iran.”

Russia’s President Putin's regional foreign policy is primarily driven by zero-sum anti-Western posture.   He seeks to position Russia as a counterweight to the West in the region and, more broadly, to divide and weaken Western institutions.  Israel, unlike Russia, is a pro-Western democracy. Moscow's growing aggression in the former Soviet Union, especially in the Ukraine, and its increasing influence in the Middle East in the context of Western retreat from the region, complicates Russian-Israeli relations.

Iran though, appears now as a strategic trade partner and a major factor in sustaining in power Russia’s ally - the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.  Iran is seen to many Russian policy-makers as a natural ally as opposed to Israel, which is a close ally of the U.S.  The geographic proximity of Iran to Russia strengthens the ties between the two.  Russian government officials have been frequent visitors to Tehran, setting up multi-billion dollar deals in a variety of areas including armament sales, nuclear components, and agricultural products.  In 2014, tensions between Russia and the West stemming from the Ukraine crisis drove the Kremlin to strengthen cooperation with Iran.

External factors will continue to create room for cooperation between Russia and Iran, especially if western sanctions continue to impact on both Russia and Iran economically.  But the formation of any comprehensive strategic alliance with Tehran is still not in Moscow’s interest because it could harm Russian dialogue with others, including Israel and Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

Historical factors may count for some sentiments but do not override political and economic interests.  In the 18th century, Imperial Russia fought the Persian Empire and took possession of much of the Caucasian territories previously held by Persia.  During WWII, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied northwestern Iran.  Current anti-western interests make Iran and Russia rather strange but understandable bedfellows.  Moreover, with many Chechen-Sunni-Muslims fighting in the ranks of IS and al-Qaeda against the Assad-Iranian-Russian coalition, Russia has an incentive to side with the Shiite camp.

Putin himself however, has a soft spot for Jews and Israel.  Throughout his life he was surrounded by Jews who helped him, and Netanyahu has developed a warm relationship with him just when his relationship with President Obama had turned sour.  Nevertheless, elements within the Russian elites harbor deep traditional anti-Semitic views that look at Jews in old fashioned, prejudicial terms.  But, to quote Lord Palmerston, the 19th Century British Prime Minister, “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”  One of Russia’s permanent interests is to replace western influence in the region, and establish Russia as the dominant power in the Middle East. 

Putin has sought a Russian role in the Middle East peace process, guided by hopes of replacing the West and of simply appearing important.  Indeed, under Putin, Russia has grown increasingly assertive, seeking to make its imprint on the peace process since joining the Quartet more than a decade ago.

Anna Borshchevskaya pointed out that “Putin's assertion of influence in the Middle East in general, and especially in Syria, while the West is retreating, raises questions for Israel and suggests it has to walk a fine line in an increasingly complicated and unstable region.”

There remains one imponderable factor…how will things change between Russia and the U.S. under President Trump.  The odds are that Russia’s interests would favor Tehran, certainly in terms of solidifying its gains in Syria.  Thus, if the chips fall, Moscow will turn to Tehran rather than to Jerusalem.  If, however, relations between Moscow and the Trump administration warm, and the sanctions against Russia are lifted, it would appear that Jerusalem might come out the winner.  In such a scenario, Netanyahu’s close relationship with Putin and Trump might serve Israel well.

Joseph Puder


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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

A Plan to Reform Our Failing Universities - David Solway

by David Solway

To begin with, Title IX should be abolished a.s.a.p.

How can we save our universities from the rot that has invaded their precincts, eroding the traditional core of Western literary, cultural, scientific, technological, and professional instruction? What would such a makeover involve?

To begin with, Title IX should be abolished a.s.a.p. Originally intended to prevent sexual and racial discrimination -- a well-intentioned but ill-conceived bipartisan measure signed into law in 1972 -- Title IX has been corrupted beyond recognition, trampling due process in sexual harassment cases, feeding the campus rape panic, curtailing free speech rights in an effort to avoid “offense,” diluting the curriculum via “trigger warnings” and “microaggression” claims, establishing a culture of grievance, allowing talks and lectures by conservative speakers to be cancelled or disrupted, gutting men’s sports programs, and surrendering to the most absurd and untenable student demands. This abomination was promoted under the rubric of “equality” in a world where natural and imprescriptible inequalities abound in both the physical and intellectual domains. The casualties are merit and individuality. As R. B. Parish writes, in the name of equality our universities “renounce culture and strive to reduce everyone down to a common level… There must be no excellence.”

Additionally, measures should be taken to prevent universities from raising tuition fees irresponsibly (which, among other advantages, would also go a long way toward reducing unsustainable student debt). According to HSDC’s (Homeland Security Defense Coalition) annual report for 2016, the average cost of tuition fees in the U.S. is in the vicinity of $33,000 per academic year, rising in the elite universities to $60,000 and more. This is unacceptable. As I’ve written previously, “Tuition fees will need to come down, perhaps by decoupling Pell grants from tuition hikes,” and subsequently capped at a rate tied to inflation.

Universities will then have to devise ways of living within their means, by drastically shrinking administrative bloat, reducing professorial salaries by a percentage to be determined, and downsizing or eliminating Humanities departments that are either irrelevant or marginal, that is, courses of study that cannot deliver basic competence in reading and writing, knowledge of civics and history, familiarity with the classics of the Western tradition, and economic productivity.

Stringent provisions will have to be made within the new education bill indicating which departments and programs are to be subject to contraction or termination, in particular the variety of trendy identity studies, which produce undereducated and unemployable graduates who become a burden both to themselves and to society.

Another factor in salvaging the university would involve flensing excess SocProg blubber like Commissions for Ethnicity, Race and Equity or President’s Advisory Committees, among a myriad of such irrelevancies. These institutions are preoccupied with such nonacademic issues as inclusivity and diversity, aboriginal health sciences, accommodating students’ religious, indigenous, and spiritual observances, diversifying food on campus, and supporting survivors of sexual violence on campus (an epidemic that doesn’t exist). They are parasites and misfits, empowered by arbitrary authority, not by long tradition, codified religion or settled law, and eating up scarce resources that could actually be invested in education. Every university in North America is saddled with the enormous collective weight -- and judging from the typical photos, the substantial weight of many of its members -- of these useless and self-serving bodies parroting the cultural bromides and shibboleths of the day. The Club Med of every token identity group imaginable, they have got to go if the university is ever to be restored to scholarly vigor and parietal sanity.

Naturally, universities will be tempted to make up the financial shortfall caused by dramatic cuts to their operating budgets by opening their doors even wider than before, letting in yet more students who do not belong in a university environment, who do not have the capacity to grapple with the intellectual demands of higher education. Affirmative action and equity hiring on the one hand, and the axioms and requisites of “social justice” on the other, have led inevitably to the curricular rot and dumbing down (or Dembing down) of the Humanities, and to the slow pollution of the STEM disciplines across the entire academic landscape. The situation will only deteriorate if a greater number of unqualified applicants are accepted in order to compensate for reduced revenue. This is why the new education bill would have to include an enforceable provision for establishing rigorous standards of admission. Nothing else will save the university from itself.

These are bold and unprecedented initiatives. It won’t be easy dealing with the proliferation of entrenched interests bunkered in their billets. Neutralizing the baneful effects of ideological pedantry that is destroying the life and function of the university will be a Herculean task. Admittedly, a thorough reform of the university system is only half the job. The K-12 juggernaut would also require a total overhaul, entailing the abolition of the Common Core paradigm, a travesty which replaces the classics with “informational texts” (e.g., IRS booklets, air-conditioning manuals), ensures low-level literacy, adulterates math standards, and imposes government control of the curriculum to support a political agenda -- the creation of a docile electorate susceptible to socialist manipulation.

A serious reform movement will clearly need to be double-pronged, but the restoration of the university to its ancestral purpose and classical spirit, namely -- to quote Matthew Arnold from Culture and Anarchy -- teaching “the best that has been thought and said” is paramount. The force of executive action and the power of the funding weapon -- Scott Greer is perfectly right in his recent No Campus for White Men in suggesting that the power of the purse should be part of the remedial arsenal -- can be immensely effective in formulating and applying policy. This has been the case in the past, especially under the Obama administration. But it worked as a strategy intended to promote indoctrination, not edification, a system copied in somewhat modified form from the German universities of the 1930s and the Communist universities of the modern era. An amending formula is necessary to end such an obscenity, despite the partisan resistance and media outcry that will surely ensue.

To recapitulate. The options available to the government for the reform of a desperately sick education system are the following:

The abolition of Title IX
  • An affordable tuition fee cap
  • The reduction of professorial and administrative salaries
  • The enforcement of rigorous admissions standards based exclusively on demonstrated merit, regardless of class, race, ethnicity, gender or religion
  • The downsizing of administration by at least 50% of personnel
  • The elimination of superfluous departments and all non-academic programs and commissions, with the exception of athletics and sports
  • The threat of penalties such as defunding and judicial process where amending criteria are not met
America has reached a critical point where the contaminants will soon have sunk too deep to be flushed out. A healthy civic life, cultural and economic resilience, innovation and invention, and a sense of national purpose all begin and end with education. In the last analysis, nothing less than the 241-year republican experiment is at stake. It is not a question of party policy; the Democrats are not Republicans and neither, on the whole, are the Republicans. The responsibility for instituting real change in the vast education apparatus falls to those who still hold to Constitutional loyalties. It may take a two-term Trump presidency and Betsy DeVos at her most determined to accomplish the feat. 

David Solway


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

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