freedombunker--2019-10-12--Teachers Who Quit to Create Schooling Alternatives

It’s not uncommon for public school teachers to experience burnout or feel demoralized by the weight of their work. Many leave the classroom and the education profession behind to pursue other careers. In fact, U.S. Labor Department data reveal that public school educators are quitting their jobs at record-breaking rates.  But some public school teachers wonder if conventional schooling may be the root of their discontent, not education itself. They are frustrated by standardized curriculum expectations, more testing, an emphasis on classroom compliance and the antagonistic relationships between teachers and students that a rigid schooling environment can cultivate. Rather than abandoning their passion for education, some of these teachers are building alternatives to school outside of the dominant system that nurture authentic teaching and learning relationships.  One of the pioneers of schooling alternatives is Kenneth Danford, a former public middle school social studies teacher who left the classroom in 1996 to launch a completely new learning model. Along with a teacher colleague, Danford opened North Star, a self-directed learning center in western Massachusetts. They sought to create a space for young people, ages 11 and up, that prioritized learner freedom and autonomy, while rejecting the coercion and control they witnessed in the conventional classroom. This involved building the learning center as a resource for peer interaction, optional classes, workshops, and adult mentoring while providing teenagers with the opportunity to come and go whenever they chose.  Using homeschooling as the legal mechanism to provide this educational freedom and flexibility, North Star members attend when they want, frequently using the center to supplement community college classes, extracurricular activities and apprenticeships. Full-time, annual membership up to four days per week is $8,200, but no family has ever been turned away for an inability to pay these fees. Some families choose part-time enrollment options that start at $3,250 per year for one day a week at North Star.  In his new book, Learning Is Natural, School Is Optional, Danford reflects on his more than 20 years of running North Star and the hundreds of young people who have gone through his program, often gaining admission to selective colleges or pursuing work in fulfilling careers. He told me in a recent interview:  Sharing this model with others was the next step for Danford. After receiving many calls and emails from educators across the country and around the world who wanted to launch centers similar to North Star, in 2013 Danford helped to establish Liberated Learners, an organization that supports entrepreneurial educators in opening their own alternatives to school.  One of the centers that sprouted from Liberated Learners is BigFish Learning Community in Dover, New Hampshire. Founded by Diane Murphy, a public school teacher for 30 years, BigFish allows young people to be in charge of their own learning. Murphy opened the center in January 2018 with five students; today, she has over 30. Full-time tuition at the center (up to four days a week) is $9,000 per year, with part-time options also available.  An English teacher, she never expected to be the founder of a schooling alternative. “I loved my job,” she says, but she quit to create something better. “The main reason I left is because the kids began showing up more and more miserable,” Murphy continues.  Granted more freedom and less coercion, young people at BigFish thrive—and so do the teachers. “Real teachers understand that our role is to support and lead young people to discover and uncover their talents, most especially to find their passions and their voice,” says Murphy. Working outside of the conventional school system may be a way forward for more teachers who want to help young people to drive their own education, in pursuit of their own passions and potential.  According to Kevin Currie-Knight, an education professor at East Carolina University, it’s rare for teachers to recognize that their dissatisfaction as an educator may be a schooling problem, not a personal one. Currie-Knight, who studies self-directed education and alternative learning models, says that the tendency is for teachers to internalize the problems they encounter in the classroom. If children aren’t engaged or are acting out, teachers typically assume that it must be their poor teaching and that they must not be cut out for the job, rather than seeing it as a problem with coercive schooling more broadly.  “School isn’t challengeable,” says Currie-Knight of its entrenched position in our culture.  Currie-Knight explains that most teachers go into education either because they really like a certain subject area or they really like kids, or both. “In the conventional environment,” he says,  Many of these teachers conclude that it’s their teaching that is the problem, rather than the underlying dynamics of conventional schooling that compel young people to learn certain content, in certain ways and at certain times.  Teachers who leave the classroom to create schooling alternatives can be an inspiration to other teachers who may feel frustrated or powerless. Rather than blaming themselves, entrepreneurial teachers are the ones who imagine, design, and implement new models of education. As BigFish’s Murphy proposes:  This article is republished with permission from Forbes.


latimes--2019-10-02--Will UC schools drop their SAT scores requirement?

Half a century ago, the University of California helped catapult the SAT to a place of national prominence in the college admissions process when it began requiring all applicants to take the test and report their score.  Now the UC system, by its sheer size and influence as the nation’s premier public research university, is again poised to play an outsize role in the future of standardized testing in America as its leaders consider whether to drop both the SAT and ACT as an admissions requirement.  Although the standardized tests are predictive of college performance, particularly at selective universities, they are increasingly seen as an unfair admission barrier to students who don’t test well or don’t have the means to access or pay for pricey test preparation. Decades of research has shown that scores are strongly influenced by family income, parents’ education and race.  The looming question is how UC officials will move to address the clearly documented flaws of the test. If they choose to throw out the SAT and the ACT, another popular test, will they find a better replacement?  “Whatever we do will be a national precedent,” UC President Janet Napolitano said at a recent Board of Regents meeting. “And so … we want to get it right.”  The decision will be a “monster deal” because UC’s status is likely to heavily influence other universities and the testing industry itself, said Jay Rosner, an admissions test expert with the Princeton Review Foundation. Rosner said four-fifths of UC applicants take the SAT, the largest single university source of customers for the College Board, which owns the test. The six universities that receive the most applications in the nation are UC campuses in Los Angeles, San Diego, Irvine, Berkeley, Santa Barbara and Davis.  UC regents are not expected to make a decision until next year. But an extraordinary and unscripted exchange about 2 hours and 25 minutes into a recent meeting revealed the enormous stakes, deep passions and growing impatience surrounding the issue.  UC Academic Senate members, to whom the regents long ago delegated authority to set admissions criteria, launched a study this year on whether to continue requiring standardized testing. Applicants could still take the test and choose to self-report scores, but the UC system would join about 1,000 other universities nationwide as test-optional.  Board of Regents Chairman John A. Pérez startled meeting participants when he asked the UC general counsel whether regents were required to wait for the senate to finish its review before deciding the issue. Vice Chairwoman Cecilia Estolano followed his question by declaring that tests use a “clearly flawed methodology that has a discriminatory impact” and suggested a possible time limit on the faculty study.  “We don’t need any more studies,” she said.  Regent Eloy Ortiz Oakley said the issue was urgent, as “millions” of students would take the test and spend substantial sums on test preparation while regents delayed action. Pérez noted that even though nonprofits such as Khan Academy offer free online test preparation, only 3% of students at some underserved schools have regular access to the internet.  On the other side, Regent George Kieffer said he was concerned that if UC eliminated the SAT, the university system could be pressed in a few years to use another test to gauge student performance.  Napolitano cautioned the board to let the faculty finish its work without an “arbitrary timeline.” And Academic Senate Chairwoman Kum-Kum Bhavnani said any decision needed to be well-grounded in research to stand up to the reaction it will unleash.  Bhavnani said an 18-member faculty task force is expected to produce preliminary results by February.  One possible alternative: using Smarter Balanced, a test used in California and more than a dozen other states to assess how well K-12 students have mastered English and math skills required by standards known as Common Core.  Smarter Balanced tests predicted first-year college grades as well as SAT exams for UC and California State University students with less bias against disadvantaged students, said Michal Kurlaender, a UC Davis education professor who co-authored a March study on the question and made a presentation to a UC faculty group. Another advantage, she said, is that all students already take the Smarter Balanced test during school hours at state expense.  It is unclear, however, whether student performance on Smarter Balanced would change if it turned into a high-stakes college admission test, and such a sea change in UC testing policy would require much advance planning.  Other options include keeping standardized tests but controlling for the socioeconomic effects on scores. Zachary Bleemer, a research associate at UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, said UC already effectively does that by admitting some less advantaged students with lower test scores than more advantaged peers.  UC San Diego, for instance, admitted African Americans, Mexican Americans and low-income students with average SAT scores about 300 points lower than Asian Americans, whites and high-income students for fall 2016. First-generation students were admitted with scores about 200 points lower than those whose parents attended college.  Although California’s Proposition 209 banned the use of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions, schools may evaluate test scores in the context of other factors, including an applicant’s family income and high school quality. UC considers 14 factors in its admissions decisions.  Kurlaender’s study and several others have found that high school GPA is the single strongest predictor of college success with the lowest negative effect on students who are low-income, underrepresented minorities or the first in their families to attend college.  But some educators are wary that going test-optional would spark even more grade inflation as high school teachers could be pressured to award more As.  For its part, the College Board said in a statement to The Times that its 2019 study of 223,000 students across 171 four-year colleges “confirms that SAT scores are strongly predictive of college performance” and that grades and test scores together provide more insight into a student’s potential than either measure alone.  ACT spokesman Ed Colby said its scores not only predict college success but also provide a common, standardized metric that allows colleges to compare students with widely different sources of information across a range of states and high schools. “No common metric increases the subjectivity of admissions decisions,” Colby said in a statement.  But the test-optional movement is accelerating, with 47 more schools joining in the last 12 months, double the number over last year, said Bob Schaeffer, public education director for FairTest, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing.  A major study last year found students who did not submit test scores were often admitted at lower rates and had modestly lower high school and cumulative college GPAs than those who submitted. But the graduation rates were comparable. The study also found that test-optional policies attracted more applicants of greater diversity, although Colby said other studies have shown otherwise.  At Pitzer College, a private liberal arts school in Claremont that became the first West Coast test-optional campus in 2003, about half of the applicants did not submit test scores. Their average first-year GPA of 3.4 is virtually the same as peers who submit scores, said Yvonne Berumen, vice president for admission and financial aid.  The University of Chicago, an elite private institution, decided to drop testing requirements to open access. Applications for fall 2019 increased 20% over last year, rising by 24% for first-generation students and 60% for rural students, said Peter Wilson, director of undergraduate admissions. He said the university considers high school transcripts, letters of recommendation, essays, extracurricular activities and such achievements as research projects, business proposals and creative arts performances. More than 85% of applicants still submit test scores, but those who don’t are evaluated on equal footing and the admission rate is identical.  Students, whether they scored high or low, tend to support test-optional college applications.  At George Washington Preparatory High School in South Los Angeles, several students interviewed this year said they wanted to take a test prep course but could not afford it and prepared using the Khan Academy website a few days before the SAT exam. They reported scores in the bottom 20th to 40th percentile.  Chelsea Salgado said she didn’t even know about practice tests, which high-scoring students say are an essential training tool. Ashlee Beard said she froze over math problems she knew she had learned to solve because “when I hear the word ‘test’ it freaks me out.”  “It’s a test that determines your future and it’s not fair,” said Abigail Laureano. “My mom cleans houses and can’t afford a tutor.”  In affluent South Pasadena, the test prep pressure is intense.  As a South Pasadena High School student, Elaine Yang took two different prep courses in 2017 and 2018, each of them eight weeks long, at a combined cost of about $2,000. They helped her raise her initial score by about 200 points to 1360, the 91st percentile, but she said she mostly just learned to build speed, stamina and testing strategies. She was admitted to Scripps College.  Lauren Kafkaloff, a South Pasadena High School graduate, spent about $100 on SAT and ACT guidebooks and took “a ton” of self-timed practice tests. She submitted the highest possible ACT test score of 36 and was admitted to the University of Pennsylvania this fall.  But she’s all for going test-optional and eventually getting rid of standardized tests entirely.  “It’s a waste of time for so many students who could be using their time more wisely doing something to change the world,” she said.


drudgereport--2019-08-12--Clashes at Temple Mount between Muslim protesters Israel Police

Clashes at Temple Mount between Muslim protesters, Israel Police...

Israeli police clashes with Palestinian worshippers at al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, Sunday, Aug 11, 2019. Clashes have erupted between Muslim worshippers and Israeli police at a major Jerusalem holy site during prayers marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean)  Israeli police clashes with Palestinian worshippers at al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, Sunday, Aug 11, 2019. Clashes have erupted between Muslim worshippers and Israeli police at a major Jerusalem holy site during prayers marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean)  JERUSALEM (AP) — Muslim worshippers and Israeli police clashed Sunday at a major Jerusalem holy site during prayers marking the Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha.  Palestinian medics said at least 14 people were wounded, one seriously, in the skirmishes with police at the site, which Muslims refer to as the Al-Aqsa mosque compound and Jews refer to as the Temple Mount. Police said at least four officers were wounded. Witnesses said at least two people were arrested.  Clouds of tear gas swirled and stun grenades thundered across the stone-paved esplanade as masses of worshippers skirmished with police in the worst bout of fighting at the contested holy site in months.  The clashes came amid heightened tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, just days after an Israeli soldier was killed south of Jerusalem. On Saturday, Israeli troops killed four Palestinian militants who attempted to cross the Gaza border fence.  Tens of thousands of Muslims had flocked to the site in Jerusalem’s Old City early Sunday for holiday prayers, police said. Jews are also observing on Sunday the Ninth of Av, a day of fasting and mourning for the destruction of the two Biblical temples which stood at the site in antiquity.  The site is the holiest for Jews and the third holiest for Muslims, after Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia, and has long been a flashpoint at the epicenter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Jordan, which serves as the custodian of the holy site, said in a statement that it had sent a formal complaint to Israel and condemned what it called Israel’s “irresponsible provocations.” Sufian al-Qudah, a spokesman for the Jordanian Foreign Ministry, said Amman holds Israel completely responsible for the violence.  Large numbers of Palestinians had gathered at the gates of the compound early Sunday after rumors circulated that police would allow Jewish visitors to enter the site. The protesters chanted “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) and threw stones at police, who then charged into the compound while firing stun grenades and rubber-coated bullets.  Israeli police had initially barred entry to Jewish visitors, but reversed their decision after the clashes broke out and allowed them to enter. Several dozen entered the site under close police escort and Muslim worshippers began throwing chairs and other objects at the group. The Jewish visitors left the compound shortly thereafter.  Jerusalem District police commander Doron Yedid told Israeli media that the decision to allow Jewish visitors to enter the site was made “with the backing of the top political officials.” Police spokesmen could not be reached for comment.  The reversal came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s religious nationalist allies called for the site to be opened to Jewish visitors. Israelis are headed to unprecedented repeat elections next month after Netanyahu failed to form a government following April’s elections.  Jews are barred from praying at the compound under a longstanding arrangement between Israel and Muslim authorities. Jewish tradition also maintains that Jews should avoid entering the holy site.  But in recent years Israeli religious nationalists have stepped up visits to the site to challenge the arrangement. Jewish extremists have called for destroying the mosque and rebuilding the Biblical temple.  The Palestinians view such visits as provocations, and have long feared that Israel intends to take over the site or partition it. The Israeli government has repeatedly said it has no intention of changing the status quo.  Hanan Ashrawi, a senior leader in the Palestine Liberation Organization, said Israel was “fueling religious tensions in Jerusalem,” adding that Israeli officials are “fully responsible for its grave consequences.”  The compound is in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war along with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories the Palestinians seek as part of a future state. Israel views all of Jerusalem as its unified capital, while the Palestinians want east Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.  Israeli-Palestinian tensions have spiked following President Donald Trump’s decision in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move the U.S. Embassy there. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has been moribund for at least a decade, and the Palestinians have cut ties with the Trump administration over what they see as its unfair bias toward Israel.  In a separate incident on Sunday, Israeli troops killed a Palestinian gunman after he opened fire on them from across the perimeter fence around the Gaza Strip.  The Israeli military said an “armed terrorist” approached the frontier early Sunday and opened fire toward troops on the other side, who responded by shooting at the attacker. The army said a tank also targeted a nearby military post operated by the Islamic militant group Hamas.  The Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza identified the deceased as 26-year-old Marwan Nasser. It was not clear if he was a member of an armed group, and no one immediately claimed responsibility for the attack.  On Saturday, Israeli troops killed four Palestinian militants who the army said had tried to carry out a cross-border attack. Hamas, which has ruled Gaza since 2007, said the attack was an “individual act” carried out by youths frustrated at the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on Gaza and was not planned by the group.


21stcenturywire--2019-03-23--Henningsen Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column working against the people

Henningsen: ‘Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column – working against the people’

On February 9, 2019, an open forum of ideas was held in Oslo, Norway to discuss and shine a light on a number of high-profile issues including Syria. The general outcome of this event was to educate and inspire delegates, and to elevate the level of political discussion in Norway which is a key component of Western geopolitics and hugely influential in international affairs through its multilateral institutions like the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and presently as a leading member of NATO, according to the American writer and global affairs analyst Patrick Henningsen who gave a presentation to the forum.  Henningsen told the Syria Times e-newspaper that the name of the conference was ‘Mot Dag’, which roughly translated in English means, ‘out of darkness, towards light’. The event was co-hosted by Pål Steigan, who is a major left-wing political figure in Norway, and Norwegian activist and media personality, Kari Angelique Jaquesson, who has been advocating on a number of high-profile social and political issues including Syria.  “The two day event covered a number of controversial issues including mainstream media propaganda, the West’s war on Syria, the White Helmets scandal, NGO fraud, the Venezuelan coup, the Gilet Jaunes aka Yellow Vests, feminism within the current western political discourse, and the debate on gender identity, including a political critique of transgender identity politics,” the writer clarified.  He underscored that the audience was extremely well-versed in cutting edge political issues which is not surprising considering that one of Pål Steigan’s core missions with his media and advocacy organization, Steigan.no, is about educating people on a broad range of political and social issues, and certainly this crowd exhibited a very high degree of political awareness on a range of topics.  The Speakers included Henningsen, journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, women activist and campaigner Posie Parker from the UK, and also leading Norwegian writer and cultural commentator, Terje Tvedt, Norwegian journalist Eva Thomassen, and many more. While attendees consisted of activists, writers, artists, philosophers, journalists, and politicians mainly from Norway, guests also came from UK, Europe, Canada and the US.  “Although the organizers are perhaps more well known for their political activities on the left side of the political paradigm, the range of both speakers and guests included those on the left, the right and center. So in that sense, this event was very much an open forum for ideas and political dialogue which meant the discussion were very dynamic, with everyone definitely challenging the prevailing establishment from their respective areas of expertise,” stated Henningsen, who is the founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire and host of the Sunday Wire weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR).  SEE ALSO: Explained: Why Julian Assange & Chelsea Manning hold key to Free Press  In a response to a question about the main points he mentioned in his presentation, the US writer said: “The main thrust of my presentation was the recent revelations of a multi-million dollar UK and US government-funded propaganda operation known as the “Integrity Initiative,” a clandestine network of bureaucrats, think tanks, intelligence operatives and mainstream western journalists – which claims to be ‘fighting Russian disinformation’ but in reality is actually spreading disinformation through the placement of propaganda and in some cases – completely fabricated anti-Russian news stories, and even targeted smear campaigns against political dissenters and alternative voices. There activities carry on right through a sophisticated international of network western media outlets and “clusters” of journalists located in the various NATO member states, all in order to demonize Russia and keep anti-Russian policies like sanctions firmly in place.”  ‘There is no MSM opposition to illegal wars of aggression’  He went on to say: “Militarized information warfare programs like the Integrity Initiative has actually backfired in the sense that they are damaging public trust in mainstream media. People know the stories are spun, they know they are being hit with fake news by the same governments and media outlets who claim to be ‘battling Russian disinformation’. The problem has reached a critical stage now whereby the credibility of mainstream media outlets is nearly eviscerated, and rather than looking in the mirror at this destructive Kafkaesque hydra they’ve allowed to run amok, the Establishment networks are instead doubling-down on this behemoth of a psychological operation and pursuing ever more aggressive censorship policies on social media monopoly platforms like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. One of the main points I tried to make in my talk is that throughout history and right up to today – the most prolific and primary source of so-called “fake news” is government agencies and the mainstream media. This is a historic fact, and people should always bear this in mind when they see the latest government-media complex crusade against the alleged scourge of fake news online.”  As for the cause of the collapse of western media credibility, Henningsen emphasized that Western mainstream media’s credibility has collapsed because rather than playing the proper role of ‘Fourth Estate’ – as an unofficial and independent people’s branch of society which traditionally would act as a watchdog against government corruption and maleficence, this formerly free press has been transformed into a Fifth Column which is now working against the people it was supposed to serve.  “So that means effectively there is no mainstream opposition to state corruption and illegal wars of aggression. The only remaining opposition is in alternative media – with its bloggers, independent journalists and social media activists – all of whom are being actively targeted by secret programs like the Integrity Initiative and so-called think tanks like the Atlantic Council and its DFR Labs. So this amounts to an extremely dire state of affairs at the moment in a Western society which is meant to be the beacon of democratic ethics and republican values,” he asserted.  The global affairs analyst indicated that this crisis in media is tearing at the very fabric of western society, and instead of addressing the real enemy within this system, the Establishment and political operatives are attempting to blame ‘the Russians’ for the current breakdown, and for all of the Establishment’s own shortcoming and systemic problems, as well as attacking alternative media outlets, bloggers and social media users of being in league with the Kremlin or ‘Assad’.  He stressed that what we are seeing today has gone way beyond the days of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare of the 1950’s, because this project has now been internationalized, “with a pernicious censorship component that is being enforced globally across Silicon Valley social media platforms.”  Henningsen believes that social media has been a tremendous tool in terms of allowing a variety of people locally and globally to share information, opinion and analysis and to network laterally and without traditional hierarchies and filters imposed by the corporate media cartels and government agencies trying to keep a lid on what information the public is allowed to see. Henningsen explains, “However, the progress of the last decade is now under direct threat from governments and corporate elites controlling the main Silicon Valley social media monopolies – who fear they have ‘lost control of the narrative’. In other words, traditional mechanisms for the production and dissemination of propaganda are no longer working for the Plutocracy like they had in the past, and so they are attempting to wrestle back control of these new digital platforms and re-compartmentalize them through automated algorithms and A.I. censorship software programs designed to mute or erase any content or view points which threaten the Establishment’s agenda on any number of geopolitical, political, commercial, social and even health issues.”  The US writer has visited the Middle East on a number of occasions, including an extended five week fact-finding mission to Syria during the war in 2017. While the war was winding down in some places at that time, but he was able to see some incredible scenes in East Aleppo, Homs and Damascus which confirmed much of what he had suspected since he started reporting on Syria in 2011.  “Most of all, I was struck by the determination of the Syrian people to resist the long proxy war which was being waged against them by the US-led ‘Coalition’ of countries and Gulf states. Much of the country has been devastated, but the people have never given up hope that they could eventually overcome the situation. That is incredible in itself and something which is absolutely unique to Syria. The people and the culture are incredibly resilient. We all can learn a lot from Syria,” Henningsen concluded.  See highlights from Henningsen’s Norway presentations here


21stcenturywire--2019-08-08--Official Secrets Priti Patels Early War on Whistleblowers

Official Secrets: Priti Patel’s Early War on Whistleblowers

As British ambassador to the US Kim Darroch tended his wounds of humiliation last month, following the leak of a cache of diplomatic cables and documents, including emails describing President Trump as ‘inept’ and ‘uniquely dysfunctional,’  an outraged UK government descended into panic over how to handle such an apparently sensitive and damaging betrayal of confidential information.  A police investigation was launched to find the leaker.  Is this dubious leak now being used to mount an attack on whistleblowers – with the help of Boris Johnson’s new Home Secretary, Priti Patel?  The leak, which led to Trump’s refusal to work with Darroch, and consequently Darroch’s resignation, is a useful type of leak for a government set on tightening the Official Secrets Act (OSA).  After all, it has not exposed evidence of any government crime, so cannot really be applauded as a courageous stand against abuse of power as in the case for example of the leaks released by Chelsea Manning and published by Wikileaks, exposing US war crimes.  The Darroch leak was clearly one of a political nature. In this way, the artificial hype being whipped-up around it actually downplays the essential and heroic role of the whistleblower.  Certainly from a purely political perspective, it could be argued that it does not serve public interest to know that a British diplomat might have a very low opinion of the US president (a fairly common view point held by many diplomats globally), which could serve certain political aims, or be motivated by spite. But that’s hardly a matter of national security.  It is for this reason that a chance leak such as this could be extremely useful for individuals and institutions with an axe to grind against whistleblowers.  It could also be used to mobilise public outrage against a foreign leader, unpopular with many, who thinks he can dictate to Britain what to do with our ambassadors.  Spin doctors in Westminster will make the seemingly impassioned argument that this leak somehow damages the hallowed ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the US. With enough arm-twisting, some of us might even be tempted to give our consent to new authoritarian laws that punish and silence those who would dare leak such information.  In this case, the Metropolitan Police took things a few dangerous steps further. On July 12th, Assistant Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, Neil Basu, made this statement:  “Given the widely reported consequences of that leak, I am satisfied that there has been damage caused to UK international relations, and there would be clear public interest in bringing the person or people responsible to justice.”  Now the police are weighing in on something as politically subjective as “international relations.” What’s much worse though is when Basu announced that the Met would also consider it a crime for anyone, including members of the press or media, to publish these leaked cables. He stated:  “The publication of leaked communications, knowing the damage they have caused or are likely to cause, may also be a criminal matter.”  “I would advise all owners, editors and publishers of social and mainstream media not to publish leaked government documents that may already be in their possession, or which may be offered to them, and to turn them over to the police or give them back to their rightful owner, Her Majesty’s government.”  The public backlash was swift however, as many public figures rebuked the Met’s shot across the press bow.  The following day Basu was then forced to walk-back the Met’s threat to the press, issuing a type of retraction some 24 hours after.  “Freedom of the press is vital, of course. There are rules around that and there are considerable protections for journalists who do reveal things and that, of course, is the right thing to do.”  From this exchange we learned that there was much more going on behind the scenes with this story than previously thought.  The ground was now set for a disturbing authoritarian legislative drive, quietly unleashed through the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC), which included the soon-to-be-Home Secretary, Priti Patel;  it submitted  recommendations to the government at the end of July following its own inquiry, described as “An urgent look at tackling a culture of leaks”  “The unauthorised disclosure of material sent by Sir Kim Darroch makes one thing very clear: those who leak are reckless and dangerous. In this case they have caused the resignation of a dedicated and skilled public servant, undermined the influence of the United Kingdom around the world and, potentially, caused a damaging rift with our most important ally.”  “The leak of Sir Kim’s communications is an egregious act by the leaker and the Committee urges the Government to use all its resources to identify and apprehend the leaker and apply the toughest of sanctions at its disposal. The Committee believes however that the sanctions available under the Official Secrets Act are not necessarily sufficient for penalising breaches of the gravity of this most recent leak. In any event, it is evident that those penalties did not act as a sufficient deterrent.”  The wording focuses on the specifics of the Darroch case and forces us to narrow our view of leaks (and those who leak) to that of self-serving individuals undeserving of any public support or legal protections.  Meanwhile, as we focus on the mischief-makers who leak, this same report proceeds to attack whistleblowers and truth tellers who make personal sacrifices to stop state-sponsored abuse:  ” … integrity must be preserved when dealing with leaks by an unambiguous response that conveys clearly that any leak will not be tolerated.”  What the FAC and Patel are attempting to do here is to somehow justify harsher sanctions and extend prison sentences under the Official Secrets Act – all on the basis of a murky Darroch case. It would be very easy to translate this as political opportunism by an increasingly authoritarian government and political class.  Should we consent to risk harsher penalties for those who expose  state-sponsored crime and corruption, at their own personal risk, based on leaks we might not care for or disapprove of?  Throughout the report there is no distinction between leaks or references to whistleblowing for matters of public interest.   The term ‘whistleblower’ is used once in the report but is given no time, importance or explanation.  It is left hanging like some abstract ideal used only to highlight the ill-intent of the Darroch leak.  Yet, while the committee calls on the government to review and ‘strengthen’ the Official Secrets Act to impose harsher sentences, it makes no reference to the fact this has been ongoing for the last few years and the Law Commission is due to publish its final recommendations this year.  Its 2017 initial recommendations led to an outcry from politicians and journalists, who condemned its authoritarian suggestions for increasing prison sentences from 2 to 14 years. Using the Darroch case as a platform, the FAC, with Patel now at the helm of the Home Office, has laid the groundwork so that the Law Commission’s full frontal attack on whistle blowers – should its 2017 recommendations remain in place- might be more palatable.  The inquiry appears to have been planned prior to Darroch’s resignation given that the first witness session was held within hours of his decision to resign,  the day after Trump’s tweet.  It was then wrapped up inside of two weeks.  Was the hurry through panic or opportunism?  The advice given by the expert witnesses in the rushed inquiry actually challenges several of the FAC’s recommendations. These include its recommendations around re-classifying information, disabling the forward button on its systems, and empowering the FAC to screen all ambassadorial candidates prior to their appointment by government.  Even the former UK Foreign Secretary William Hague, known for his approval for regime changes, did not see the purpose of lengthy prison sentences for those who leak information.  All agreed the ‘culture of loyalty’ to be the best protection against leaks.  The FAC seems to have its own agenda whatever.  Most clearly, beneath its desperate reflexive maneuvering to stop leaks… is the attack on whistleblowers.  Pockets of the leaks inquiry reveal how whistleblowers are really viewed by British diplomats, as shown in this comment offered by Adam Thomson, former UK permanent representative to NATO:  “There are other leaks that can be massively more damaging, such as cases where lives are lost because sources and methods have been disclosed, or things on the scale of what Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden were responsible for, which, I assume, have had large-scale consequences for how the US system operates.”  Thomson does not explain the things Manning and Snowden ‘were responsible for’  but we get the message that their whistleblowing of state-sponsored abuses are never to be mentioned by government officials;  state-sponsored murders and human rights violations are airbrushed.  As is always the case, any statements about “loss of lives because sources and methods have been disclosed” is kept intentionally vague and unqualified.  Surely an inquiry into why leaks should be stopped would be the ideal place to provide evidence of deaths they have caused?  During the inquiry whistleblowers were smeared as being ‘useful idiots’ or individuals working for governments intent on malevolent leaking.  It is within the description of malevolent and useful idiot that former UK ambassador to the US Peter Westmacott places Wikileaks and whistleblowers:  “If you are, say, a Government that is into malevolent leaking of another Government’s communications, you might quite like to use a cut-out, or if you are the Russians you might use Wikileaks, for example. You might use either a useful idiot or somebody who shares that interest in getting that material into the public domain.  Here we have the ‘malign Russian influence’ narrative regularly used to attack Wikileaks, and to smear whistleblowers, or any other political dissent for that matter.  But as John Pilger points out, the numbers do not add up if we are to believe Wikileaks conspires with the Kremlin:  That Wikileaks is seen as the enemy during the inquiry is clear:  the fear of having the impunity of its diplomatic and political class challenged is an unacceptable red line for the British elite. That the UK government has spent almost a decade assisting the US in its persecution of Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is the evidence.  Bob Seely Tory MP for the Isle of White, who sits on the FAC, has aggressively promulgated the ‘malign influence of the Putin government’ narrative. The political agenda of Seely and the FAC around Russia has led to the formation of the UK’s Magnitsky sanctions.  These originated from the politically-driven US Magnitsky Act based on the dubious claims against the Russian government made by Bill Browder, and used to target individuals.  Although the sanctions are in theory applicable to any individual, not just Russians, the agenda of the FAC and individuals like Seely appears to be to drive a ‘new cold war’ narrative between Russia and the West.  Following Assange’s arrest on 11th April, after being unconstitutionally stripped of his asylum and Ecuadorian citizenship rights inside the Ecuadorian embassy, he was charged by the US government for what amounts to a bogus conspiracy to hack a US government computer charge. It relates to Manning’s 2010 release of documents exposing US war crimes published by Wikileaks,  and was accompanied with a request for Assange’s extradition to the US.  That day, Seely made the following comment in Parliament:  “I understand that the potential extradition to the United States relates to the half a million leaked documents in the Chelsea Manning case. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is potentially a more serious and disturbing case against Julian Assange in relation to his and WikiLeaks’ role in the Kremlin’s 2016 attempts to interfere with and manipulate the United States presidential elections, when WikiLeaks was used by Russian military intelligence—the GRU—as the primary vehicle to disseminate the stolen documents, hacked by the GRU from the Democratic party? While some see him as an information war hero, others see him as a useful stooge of an authoritarian state.”  Seely continued pushing the Russia government hacking conspiracy narrative, one that has been shown by numerous intelligence analysts to be false and also rebuked by a recent US court ruling.  The same day, in an article in the Telegraph,  he called Assange a ‘useful idiot and left-wing dupe‘.  The article drives the narrative that Assange is somehow implicated in a Russian intelligence conspiracy designed to undermine American democracy by interfering in the 2016 elections, and describes Assange’s role, crucially, as disseminating documents.  Seely then goes on to suggest that only by being forced by a court, could Assange answer questions of what happened.  In his article Seely recognises documents were leaked to  Wikileaks and Assange by whoever accessed them in order for them to be published:  a practice in journalism. This did not stop a member of the FAC and government from effectively suggesting prosecution for exactly that.  Isn’t Seely suggesting here that disseminators of information, otherwise known as journalists and publishers, should be forced into court to answer questions on their sources? It seems so.  New US Court Ruling Vindicates for Assange, WikiLeaks  Seely’s authoritarian stance was exposed last week as a federal judge in New York,  Judge John Koeltl, dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) over WikiLeaks’ publication of DNC documents in 2016.  The judge ruled that:  “Journalists are allowed to request documents that have been stolen and to publish those documents.”  “A person is entitled [to] publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.”  This ruling by a US judge is significant as it upholds the ability of journalists to report matters of public concern without being criminalised, a protection for free speech:  “If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet. But that would impermissibly elevate a purely private privacy interest to override the First Amendment interest in the publication of matters of the highest public concern. The DNC’s published internal communications allowed the American electorate to look behind the curtain of one of the two major political parties in the United States during a presidential election. This type of information is plainly of the type entitled to the strongest protection that the First Amendment offers.”  It is also vindication that Assange, now facing trumped-up charges of espionage in the US, is a journalist who has published information on matters of great public interest and importance through Wikileaks.  The future of press freedom in the UK is of great concern.  In its 2017 recommendations, the Law Commission, in addition to suggesting higher prison sentences for whistleblowers, proposed prosecuting those who receive and disseminate information covered under the Official Secrets Act. Those who receive and disseminate information are journalists. Seely’s article on Assange indicates how within the corridors of power there is desire to place journalists in the dock simply for doing their job.  What’s more, the statement released by the Metropolitan police following the publication of the Darroch emails, that media outlets should not publish leaked government documents should perhaps not be swept aside as some random error.  Given the mounted attack on press freedom by the UK government through its support of Assange’s extradition to the US, effectively for doing journalism, combined with the potential attack on whistleblowers and journalists under the Official Secrets Act – which the new Home Secretary appears to be cheerleading already – the public should remain more vigilant than ever and treat any comment about prosecuting journalists as suspicious.  ***   Author Nina Cross is an independent writer and researcher, and contributor to 21WIRE. To see more of her work, visit  Nina’s archive.


aljazeera--2019-02-28--Trumps Middle East strategy is bound to fail

Trump's Middle East strategy is bound to fail

Just a week after attending what was largely seen as "anti-Iran" conference in Warsaw earlier this month, Jared Kushner, senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, embarked on a special diplomatic trip across the Middle East to promote and fundraise for his peace plan to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Unsurprisingly, on his tour of the region, he brought along US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook.  The Warsaw meeting and Kushner's Middle East trip reflect what seems to be a key foreign policy pillar of the Trump administration which links the much-awaited "deal of the century" to the formation of an Arab-Israeli anti-Iran alliance.  The expectations of the White House are that the Arabs would sign off on Kushner's deal, normalise relations with the Israelis and work with them to deter Iran. That is why, while many observers saw the Warsaw conference as a failure, since it did not convince European allies to fully back US anti-Iranian regime policies, the Trump administration saw it as a success, having brought together Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and representatives of several Arab countries on the same table.  However, this rather myopic foreign policy strategy for the Middle East ignores important realities on the ground and is, therefore, doomed to fail.  Since he moved into the White House in January 2017, Trump has made it a point to systematically undo the Iran policies that his predecessor had put in place.  President Barack Obama believed the US should not confront Iran on behalf of Arab allies and sought to engage Tehran. His administration increased pressure through international sanctions and at the same time pushed for dialogue.  Between 2014 and 2016, the US and Iran tacitly worked together to fight the common threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) by backing the governments of Iraq and Lebanon while avoiding confrontation in Syria. The engagement effort with Iran culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which obviously did not please Israel and Saudi Arabia.  After Trump took power, he withdrew from the JCPOA and re-imposed tough sanctions on Iran, seeking to pressure Tehran into concessions on its ballistic missiles programme and its regional activities. But so far, the escalation has only made Iran more defiant.  The Iranian regime has repeatedly made it clear that it is not willing to negotiate under the present terms. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei said recently that his regime talking to the US in the current context is like "going on your knees before the enemy".  Despite the Trump administration's escalation against Iran, the Obama-era rules of engagement remain in place in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, where the US continues to avoid direct confrontation with Iranian forces and proxies.  However, the ongoing psychological war is fuelling paranoia in Tehran, which increases the risk of a miscalculation. If Washington and Tehran continue pushing the envelope, their proxies would be the ones who pay the price.  A cornered Iranian regime could easily become a spoiler for US policies in the Middle East. It could motivate its assets in Gaza to act against Israel or force the hands of the Iraqi and Lebanese governments to take action against US interests.  Subversive Iranian activity might not only weaken US allies in the region but also sabotage US efforts to advance Palestinian-Israeli talks.  Trump has also reversed the long-standing US policy on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. His administration is now pushing to break a basic Arab policy principle, which ties normalisation with Israel to a fair Israeli-Palestinian deal that recognises a viable Palestinian state, provides for Israel's withdrawal to 1967 borders and settles the status of Jerusalem. US Arab allies want a deal that meets these basic requirements; anything short of that would be difficult to sell at home.  Arab leaders remain uncomfortable with official normalisation with Israel given that the Arab public remains sensitive to the idea of them cosying up to Israel. Popular unrest can easily erupt across the Arab world if Arab leaders endorse a Palestinian-Israeli deal perceived as flawed.  Recognising this danger, Saudi King Salman recently took back the Palestine portfolio from his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, and restored Riyadh's long-standing position on the Palestinian issue. This stance was conveyed in an interview on February 13 by former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal al-Saud with Israeli Channel 13, which hinted that Saudi Arabia is waiting with open arms for Israel if and when it makes a fair deal with the Palestinians.  The other risk Arab leaders face in undertaking premature normalisation with Israel is that the Trump administration might not be willing in return to go beyond words and sanctions in deterring Iran in the region.  However, the core challenge to Arab-Israeli normalisation and anti-Iran coalition-building remains the Palestinian question.  Jared Kushner has put together a peace deal which might be unveiled in April after the Israeli general elections. The so-called "deal of the century" is arguably the first attempt at resolving the conflict in which the Palestinian side was not informed or consulted.  What is interesting about this plan is its approach to Palestinian politics. After Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007, the Bush administration's policy was to punish the strip by blocking all aid while simultaneously assisting the Palestinian Authority to showcase a model of how the West Bank can prosper when it abides by international norms and accepts negotiations with Israel.  Trump is reversing this approach by punishing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank for refusing to accept the "deal of the century" after he moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Simultaneously, the White House is enticing Hamas with funding for major economic projects in Gaza, which like the approach of the Bush administration, encourages Palestinian divisions instead of strengthening Palestinian unity.  Trump needs a unified Palestinian front to put a stamp of approval on the peace plan his son-in-law is proposing, but both Fatah and Hamas are invested in the divide between the West Bank and Gaza and see a possible reunification under the deal as detrimental to their interests.  Although the full provisions of the deal have not been yet disclosed, the details already known to the public indicate that it will not uphold the best interests of the Palestinians.  In an interview for Emirati channel Sky News Arabia broadcast on February 25, Kushner stated: "if you can eliminate the border and have peace and less fear of terror, you could have freer flow of goods, freer flow of people and that would create a lot of opportunities."  What his cryptic declaration means is that the weaker Palestinian economy will become further integrated into the Israeli one, making Palestinians even more dependent on the Israeli state, which will retain full control over security and hence its ability to repress Palestinian political dissent.  Thus, Trump is linking the Arab-Israeli normalisation and deterrence of Iran to a Palestinian-Israeli deal on terms, which would institutionalise Israeli control over the Palestinian territories and have disastrous consequences for Palestinians.  Having the Palestinians pay for the Arab-Israeli alliance will likely spell trouble for Arab leaders down the road. It might undermine the deterrence of Tehran by boosting the popularity of the Iranian regime in the region and further delegitimise already weakened Arab regimes.  In this sense, the Trump administration's strategy of linking a flawed Israeli-Palestinian deal to an Arab-Israeli alliance to deter Iran might undermine these two US objectives in the Middle East and might even backfire against US allies and interests in the region.  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


aljazeera--2019-08-03--Ugandan academic Stella Nyanzi jailed for harassing Museveni

Ugandan academic Stella Nyanzi jailed for 'harassing' Museveni

A prominent Ugandan academic has bared her breasts and screamed obscenities in protest as a magistrate sentenced her to 18 months' prison on controversial charges of "harassing" President Yoweri Museveni.  The verdict against Stella Nyanzi on Friday drew the ire of rights activists who accused the government of using laws about electronic communications to stifle political dissent.  Nyanzi, a university lecturer and researcher who once called Museveni "a pair of buttocks", is expected to serve nine months in prison after having already spent nine months behind bars.  Appearing in a Kampala court via video link, Nyanzi raised her middle fingers and yelled profanities in defiance as she was sentenced, before flashing her breasts as her supporters whooped and cheered.  A plastic bottle was hurled at the magistrate as police tried to restore order.  "Dr Stella was very upset that she was not allowed to appear in court physically and instead appeared by video link," her lawyer, Isaac Semakadde, told AFP news agency.  "There has been lack of transparency in this trial."  A second charge of "offensive communication" was dropped against Nyanzi, who has vowed not to relent in her barbed criticism of Uganda's long-serving ruler.  "I planned to offend Yoweri Museveni Kaguta, because he has offended us for 30 plus years," she told the courtroom on Thursday before being found guilty.  "We are tired of a dictatorship."  Her offence stemmed from a Facebook post last year in which she said she wished Museveni, 74, had been burned up by the "acidic pus" in his mother's birth canal.  Prosecutors described the post as a "brutish attack on the person of the president and his late mother".  In a statement on Friday, Joan Nyanyuki, director for East Africa at human rights group Amnesty International, said: "This verdict is outrageous and flies in the face of Uganda's obligations to uphold the right to freedom of expression ... and demonstrates the depths of the government's intolerance of criticism."  The verdict should be quashed and Nyanzi, who has been in jail since November last year, freed immediately, she said.  "The Ugandan authorities must scrap the Computer Misuse Act... which has been used systematically to harass, intimidate and stifle government critics."  Ugandan pop star turned leading opposition figure Bobi Wine, who has announced his intention to challenge Museveni in 2021 elections, defended Nyanzi's right to challenge "dictatorship, corruption and nepotism".  "The same courts which have... defended and shielded the champions of these ills have no moral authority to talk about morals," he posted on his Twitter account on Thursday.  A research associate at Kampala's prestigious Makerere University, Nyanzi holds a doctorate on sexuality in Africa and has defended her visceral attacks against Museveni and his family.  In 2017, she told AFP that "so-called vulgar words are sometimes the best way to get your message across".  In her most recent post, she wrote a poem about her court case: "My presence in your court as a suspect and prisoner highlights multiple facets of dictatorship. I exposed the entrenchment of autocracy."  Earlier this year Uganda's Supreme Court upheld a decision to remove an age cap of 75 for presidential contenders, paving the way for Museveni - who has ruled since 1986 - to run again.  Critics say Museveni is increasingly becoming intolerant of dissent as resistance to his rule grows.


aljazeera--2019-08-21--The political impotence of the Muslim American community

There was a time when Islam was a revolutionary force in America. Decades ago, "Muslim" was a political identity grounded in an ethos of dissent, exemplified by Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X. Being Muslim meant standing up against white supremacy and global empire, whether in Alabama or Vietnam; it meant standing in solidarity with the struggles of black and brown people everywhere.  Today, many American Muslims eagerly claim the legacy of brothers Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X as their own, but lack the political courage and moral integrity by which they lived.  We have become a community without a principled political vision, impotent in the face of state oppression: the continuous FBI surveillance and entrapment and ever-expanding anti-Muslim legislation. Not only are we unable to organise on these issues, but we have also lost the common ethical ground that could unite us around a common political vision and action.  Until recently, despite the divisions within the community, the Muslim American community seemed united at least in its opposition to the Trump administration; that appeared to be the lowest common denominator of a shared American Muslim political identity. But then on July 8, Secretary of State and top Islamophobe Mike Pompeo announced the creation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights to advise the Trump administration - a serial human rights violator - on human rights. One of our most prominent leaders, Hamza Yusuf, accepted to become part of the theatrics.  This announcement marked the culmination of years of mainstream Muslim organisations and individuals promoting those among its ranks who align themselves with white supremacy, the erosion of civil liberties, and global tyranny.  Despite the outrageousness of Yusuf's decision, many in the community still defended him. Imam Zaid Shakir, who in the past has also voiced his support for "blue lives matter" also appeared to shield him from accountability. In 2006, he and Yusuf were profiled in the New York Times as reformed troublemakers, former critics of American policies, who have now been rehabilitated into the mainstream as "good" Muslims.  In 2008, the two founded Zaytuna College, a Muslim liberal arts institution aimed at educating "students to become morally, intellectually and spiritually accomplished persons". The college publishes a journal which is funded by the Templeton Foundation whose benefactors are known sympathisers of the ultra-conservative Tea Party. The same foundation also supports the Quilliam Foundation of UK-based self-professed "counter-extremist" Maajid Nawaz.  There have been others like Yusuf in the Muslim American community who have engaged in dubious interactions with state power. Another prominent scholar, Sherman Jackson, is a board member of the UAE-based Muslim Council of Elders. In 2015, together with other members, he attended a meeting with Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi at the height of his brutal crackdown on political dissent, which saw tens of thousands thrown in jail, tortured and forcefully disappeared. In 2018, the council also congratulated the Egyptian president for winning uncontested a second term in a sham election.  Jackson is also an adviser to the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) initiative of the right-wing think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies, alongside former British PM Tony Blair, who stands accused of war crimes in Iraq.  Hamza Yusuf and Sherman Jackson are A-list celebrities of American Muslim subculture. Yet, when they lend credibility to white supremacy and tyranny, American Muslims refuse to hold them accountable.  There have also been prominent figures within the community who have backed the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Trump administration's "Muslim ban" and others who have repeatedly crossed the picket line drawn by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and engaged with representatives of the Israeli occupation.  Many Muslim Americans also continue to embrace and support the US army, even when it is deployed in Muslim countries to carry out our government's imperial ploys. To appeal to the "white gaze", we have lionised someone like Khizr Khan  - a man whose only claim to fame is being the father of a Muslim soldier who was killed during his deployment to support the US occupation of Iraq.  This culture of political subservience and collaboration isn't limited to a select few individuals. Prominent organisations like Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Ta'leef Collective, the Inner-City Muslim Action Network (IMAN) and others have engaged (or have tried to) with CVE programmes funded by the US government and law enforcement. The community has yet to register so much as a murmur about these organisations, despite ample studies and analysis available detailing the harm caused by CVE initiatives.  Apart from this, mainstream Muslim organisations are involved in a variety of other problematic practices. The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which continues to enjoy much support among American Muslims, is known for condemning what it identified as "riots" in Baltimore after the police killing of Freddie Gray and starting a partnership with the Islamophobic American Jewish Committee (AJC). In 2015, months after Israel's invasion of Gaza which killed over 2,000 Palestinians, ISNA's president, Sayyid Syeed, notoriously attended a closed-door meeting with former Israeli President Shimon Peres.  Another example is Emgage, an organisation that claims to empower Muslim Americans through its voter registration drives, political lobbying, and campaigning, Yet its national chair, Khurrum Wahid, has gone on a trip to Israel funded by the Shalom Hartman Institute as part of a faith washing initiative known as the "Muslim Leadership Initiative" in direct violation of the Palestinian call for a boycott.  Emgage has cosponsored several events with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organisation that even Starbucks was forced to drop from its diversity training programme after activists pointed out its historic cosy relationship with law enforcement and its discrimination against black and Muslim Americans. When a corporate coffee chain holds itself to higher standards on Muslim issues than leading Muslim organisations, we have a problem.  There are far more cases of problematic practices by Muslim individuals and organisations than can be addressed here. However, even this cursory overview is enough to raise a question. What moral integrity, what political courage remains in a community whose every pillar - the intellectuals, the spiritual leaders, the political organisers, the schools, the mosques, the civil service organisations, nearly everything - is compromised?  We have hundreds of Muslims jailed across the country after facing biased pre-emptive prosecution, some for simply engaging in charity. Many of them can be considered political prisoners. How can we claim the legacy of Malcolm X who rallied thousands to demand the release of Brother Johnson within hours of his arrest, when today, we refuse to even utter the names of our political prisoners in our own mosques?  What drives American Muslims to collude with state-sponsored oppression? There are several factors, including a culture of aspirational whiteness among immigrant Muslims and a drive to gain legitimacy and insider status within hegemonic political frameworks.  Another factor is money: Institutions often struggle to raise funds and programmes like CVE offer millions of taxpayer dollars in grants. Just as the Islamophobia industry funds the careers of Islamophobic personalities and sustains Islamophobic think tanks and lobbying firms, there is a growing cottage industry that has made it lucrative for Muslim individuals and organisations to collaborate with government programmes that harm the community.  Some defend their collaboration using talking points widely discredited by academics and activists, but as American politician Upton Sinclair observed many decades ago, "It is difficult to get a man to understand  something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."  In the case of scholars and imams, the answer partly lies in colonised readings of the Islamic tradition that push for political quietism and obedience to state power. As well-versed as many Muslim scholars are in aspects of the Islamic legal tradition, applying theoretical maxims to the context of modern politics without understanding its history and dynamics often leads to positions that are naive at best and in the service of oppression at their worst.  Thus, the theological approach of scholars like Hamza Yusuf not only stifles Muslim resistance efforts worldwide, but also preaches against so-called "self-victimisation", which often descends into outlandish defences of Donald Trump and the dismissal of conversations concerning institutional oppression.  When political cowardice is the defining feature of our leaders and institutions, when a theology of obedience is the approach of our scholars, and when corporations like Starbucks take more principled stances on our issues than we do, we can be sure that we have lost the common principles that bind a community together.  When hundreds of our most vulnerable are imprisoned as part of a wider attack on us all, and, out of fear or apathy, we prefer to erase their existence, to forget their names, surely we have discarded the love that members of a community feel for one another. We have ensured that the decades-long campaign to neutralise our community is now complete.  The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.


aljazeera--2019-09-11--Syria US-led coalition may have committed war crimes UN report

Syria, US-led coalition may have committed war crimes: UN report

Syrian government forces backed by Russian warplanes may have committed war crimes while targeting medical facilities, schools, markets and farmland in an ongoing deadly campaign in northwestern Syria, UN investigators say.  The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria also said on Wednesday that Hay'et Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former al-Qaeda affiliate fighting government forces in the northwestern province of Idlib, fired rockets indiscriminately and killed civilians.  Syrian forces carried out repeated air raids in Saraqib in Idlib on March 9, damaging Al-Hayat women's and children's hospital despite being aware of its coordinates, the report said.  In Idlib on May 14, "pro-government forces air-dropped between two and four missiles on a fish market and primary school for girls in Jisr al-Shughour", killing at least eight civilians, it said.  "Such attacks may amount to the war crime of deliberately attacking protected objects and intentionally attacking medical personnel," the UN report said.  The Syrian army denies it targets civilians and says its forces only bomb fighters associated with "terrorists".  Idlib, which borders Turkey, is the final rebel stronghold in the country.  In late April, Syrian forces, backed by Russia since 2015, began an offensive in the region in an attempt to capture the strategic area, which lies on a key highway connecting the capital, Damascus, with the northern city of Aleppo.  Last week, UN rights chief Michelle Bachelet said her office tallied more than 1,000 civilian deaths in northern Syria over the last four months - the majority caused by air raids and ground attacks by President Bashar al-Assad's forces and their allies.  The report, released Wednesday, also looked into other violations and documented how civilians continue to bear the brunt of the bloody eight-year war.  "Civilians continue to be unlawfully detained or kidnapped and often tortured for expressing political dissent," the report said.  "In government-controlled areas, civilians, including recent returnees, have been arbitrarily arrested and detained, harassed, mistreated and tortured."  The UN also laid blame on the US-led coalition that has been battling Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) in the country.  It said coalition air raids in Syria have killed and wounded many civilians, highlighting that precautions were ignored and war crimes may have been committed.  Backed by US-led coalition air power in a fight to remove ISIL, the Syrian Democratic Forces, which include Kurdish fighters, retook the group's last major stronghold of Hajin in eastern Syria in late December.  The coalition's Al-Jazeera Storm operation resulted in a high number of civilian casualties, including in a series of attacks on January 3 in Sha'fah, south of Hajin, that killed 16 civilians including 12 children, the UN report said.  "Launching indiscriminate attacks that result in death or injury to civilians amounts to a war crime in cases in which such attacks are conducted recklessly," it said.  Coalition officials could not be reached immediately for comment.  Night raids by SDF forces backed by coalition helicopter gunships killed and wounded civilians in Shahil and other parts of Deir Az Zor province, in further apparent violations of international law, the investigators said.  The report covered events up until July and is based on nearly 300 interviews and analysis of satellite imagery, photographs and video.  The Syrian civil war, now in its ninth year, has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced 13 million people from their homes.


aljazeera--2019-09-26--Egyptian protesters to press for President el-Sisis ouster

Egyptian protesters to press for President el-Sisi's ouster

Egyptian demonstrators are expected to stage protests on Friday with Twitter hashtags and social media accounts urging people to take to the streets and peacefully demand the resignation of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.  More than 2,000 people have been arrested since rare protests broke out in several cities last week calling on el-Sisi to step down. Thousands marched against the president's rule after corruption allegations emerged surrounding his and his family's lavish spending.  Security forces on Wednesday detained several prominent Egyptian intellectuals and public figures, including Hassan Nafaa, a political science professor at Cairo University and well-known columnist.  "I have no doubt that the continuation of el-Sisi's absolute rule will lead to disaster," Nafaa said in a tweet on Tuesday before being taken away. "Egypt's interest requires his departure today before tomorrow."  Nafaa's arrest followed the detention of Hazem Hosny, a spokesman for former army chief Sami Anan who was jailed last year for attempting to run against el-Sisi in a presidential election. Khaled Dawoud, the head of Al-Doustor Party who has been a vocal critic of the president's policies, was also detained.  Analysts and politicians say the crackdown on critical voices reflects the government's insecurity and vulnerability at a critical time as Egypt's economic woes intensify for the poor and middle class.  "The arrests show the regime's disregard for Egyptians and how terrified it is," said Istanbul-based Ayman Nour, an opposition leader and former presidential candidate.  "But there's more to it. Sisi is trying to send a clear message to prominent generals and politicians who might provide an alternative to him because he has run country's economy to the ground and because of his widespread political repression."  Nour said he expects more people will take to the streets now that "the fear barrier" has been broken down, with the government's heavy-handed approach only heightening people's anger at worsening socioeconomic conditions.  Though small in scale, the rare public displays of anger followed calls for action from a contractor who previously worked with the Egyptian military, Mohamed Ali. The part-time actor was able to forge close ties with members of the political establishment and top brass of the armed forces, eventually becoming an insider.  In a series of videos posted online, he admitted to benefitting from government corruption, describing how his company, Amlak, was awarded lucrative state contracts without going through the proper bidding process.  Ali said he regretted being part of the rampant corruption among the army corps and el-Sisi's relatives, including his wife Intissar.  His description of opulent palaces and luxury hotels that he claimed to have built for el-Sisi - and for which he has yet to be paid - stood in sharp contrast to the deep poverty Egyptians currently live in.  On Twitter, hashtags such as "come out you are not alone", "you are done Sisi", "Sisi must go", and "Next Friday" generated tens of thousands of tweets and retweets calling on people to take to the streets peacefully to demand that el-Sisi step aside.  Egyptian Hollywood actor Amr Waked posted in Arabic to his almost seven million followers on Thursday: "Sisi is done ... it is over for him and anyone who supports him now will be making a huge mistake."  Addressing el-Sisi directly in the tweet, Waked added, "Get smart stupid. Leave and let the people take what belongs to them."  The decision to slash food and fuel subsidies as part of a 2016 loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in addition to the floating of the Egyptian currency, has led to a sharp increase in the price of basic commodities, hitting poor people the hardest.  By the government's own admission, the poverty rate rose to 32.5 percent in 2018, up from 27.8 percent in 2015.  Amy Hawthorn, deputy director for research at the Project on Middle East Democracy, said this is what pushed people to protest.  "[Demonstrators] are driven by economic difficulties and alleged corruption by President el-Sisi and his inner circle," she said.  Security forces have stepped up their presence in anticipation of more protests with policemen stopping anyone suspected of political activism.  Even government supporters have been caught in the crackdown. In one video, an el-Sisi sympathiser is seen broadcasting a live feed from Tahrir Square, the epicentre of the 2011 protests that forced former President Hosni Mubarak to resign. The man was interrupted by the police as he dismissed reports of demonstrators taking place there.  In another video posted on Twitter, a police officer fires a pistol in the direction of a balcony where a woman filmed security forces chasing a group of young Egyptians.  Since the military's overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi in 2013, el-Sisi has overseen a broad crackdown against any dissent.  While members of the Muslim Brotherhood - to which Morsi belonged - were the main target of a heavy-handed approach to political dissent, arrests extended well beyond the group. Civil rights activists, journalists, and actors have also been targeted.  The president's supporters have justified the measures as necessary to restore order and combat armed groups operating in the Sinai Peninsula.  But in his latest video, Ali, the contractor, said the counterterrorism narrative was a way for el-Sisi to sell himself to the world.  "To stabilise the region and impose peace, I have to combat terrorism. And to combat terrorism I need terrorists," Ali said on Wednesday, paraphrasing the el-Sisi government's argument to world leaders.


aljazeera--2019-11-23--Tanzania to hold local elections amid opposition boycott

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - Tanzanians will head to the polls on Sunday to vote in local elections which have been boycotted by the country's top opposition parties over allegations of cheating.  Although the boycott has complicated matters, observers will be keen to take stock of public sentiment before 2020's presidential, parliamentary and council elections, in a country where reliable and independent political data is scarce and space for critical media is rapidly shrinking.  There are 333,555 seats to be contested in Sunday's vote, the vast majority of which were due to have candidates from across Tanzania's political spectrum.  On November 7, however, the leading opposition party Chadema said it would not participate over allegations of government interference. Six other parties have since joined the boycott.  In announcing his party's withdrawal, Chadema chairman Freeman Mbowe said some 94 percent of its candidates were disqualified, while more than 90 percent of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi's (CCM) candidates were approved.  Many election officers cited minor errors as the cause for rejection, such as mixing "L" and "R" on application forms, despite the fact that these are liberally interchanged in many dialects across the country.  The government has denied foul play, while some question why CCM would want to intervene.  "CCM has readied itself over the last four years and implemented a large portion of its promises to voters, meaning it really would have had no need to exclude opposition candidates," Said Msonga, a Tanzanian political analyst, said.  However, Dan Paget, a University College London expert on Tanzanian politics, suggested that despite the government's clear advantage, it could be uncertain of the competition because it had shrunk the civic space. Last month, rights groups accused the government of President John Magufuli of repressing political dissent, including by stifling independent journalism and severely restricting the activities of NGOs.  "The alleged manipulation of the local elections is reason to re-evaluate how popular the opposition is. It smacks of the action of a ruling party apprehensive about the electoral threat posed by the opposition," Paget said.  "Perhaps CCM fears that the opposition is strong. Perhaps they simply don't know."  After the boycott announcement, the government made a series of U-turns that may support this theory.  On November 10, days after the cut-off for appeals, Minister of Regional Administration and Local Government Selemani Jafo invited all rejected candidates to stand in the election, even without their parties - despite independent candidates being officially banned.  The next day, Jafo backtracked, saying that the rejected candidates would need to be vetted by returning election officers - the same officials who rejected application forms en masse in the first place.  Analysts say the government's flip-flopping indicates hesitation, which supports the view that even CCM might not be sure how seriously to take the opposition.  CCM - and its pre-union predecessor TANU - has ruled Tanzania continuously since independence in 1968.  Although technically just a political party, critics allege that CCM is undeniably enmeshed with the state machinery thanks to protocols left over from decades of one-party rule, which ended in 1992.  For example, all key government positions - from district commissioners to judges - are still directly appointed by the president, and since 2015 Magufuli has been accused of leaning on these protocols to his benefit.  Plucked from the relative obscurity of the Ministry of Works, Magufuli made CCM frontrunner in 2015, thanks to his scrupulous reputation and a zealous work ethic that earned him the nickname "The Bulldozer".  He has applied this zeal to grand projects such as the Steigler Gorge Dam and in rooting out civil service corruption, as well as clamping down on critics of the party line.  While many Tanzanians agree that his flagship infrastructural projects are desperately overdue, there has been an alarming decline in civic freedoms since he took office.  "The [government's] regressive policies and actions have stifled the media, sown fear among civil society, and restricted the playing field for political parties in the lead-up to [2020] elections," Oryem Nyeko, Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch, said in a report last month.  "With only a year to go, this government needs to reverse these patterns of abuse and demonstrate a genuine commitment to the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly as protected in the constitution and under human rights treaties to which Tanzania is a state party."  New laws forcing media companies to periodically reapply for operating licences have quashed critical voices in local media, while legislation restricting political activity has frustrated activists and tied up opposition leaders in court cases facing charges such as sedition.  Paget believes this has pushed the opposition back to the grassroots, raising the stakes in Sunday's election.  "Authoritarian measures have driven Chadema to organise on the ground, the one place they can still operate," he said.  Yet as Msonga points out, opposition parties could endanger this final refuge by refusing to take part in Sunday's vote.  "The only thing they will achieve is in sending a message to the public and perhaps to the international community that political competition in Tanzania faces various challenges, especially on the grounds of transparency, freedom and justice," he said.  "Decision-makers will become far removed from ordinary people and they will likely lose their support, especially in the rural areas."  Indeed, some party members have announced they intend to defy the boycott, while the defection of Arusha's Chadema Mayor to CCM earlier this week exposed division among the party's elite.  Although it is impossible to predict exactly how Sunday's election will unfold, there seem to be a few distinct possibilities.  CCM candidates have been instructed to proceed as usual, meaning landslide victories are practically guaranteed - in the business capital Dar Es Salaam, only two of 576 voting stations will be open as CCM candidates stand unopposed in all the others.  This means that the government, the opposition and the public at large will walk into the triple elections of 2020 blind as to a realistic measure of parties' popularity.  Paget argues this will make next year's contests particularly vulnerable to manipulation.  "If CCM were to win a landslide this weekend, it might make a similar result in 2020 seem more likely.  "This in turn might make it more plausible for CCM to manipulate the 2020 election."  Legality is another thorny issue. Multi-partyism is enshrined in Tanzania's constitution, and so a boycott which included all opposition parties could potentially lead to a constitutional crisis.  Sarah Benedict, assistant lecturer at Dodoma's Local Government Training Institute, believes this would be difficult for the opposition to argue however, as in the government's view the candidates excluded themselves.  "Non-participation doesn't affect the process. [Opposition candidates] still qualify for the election and the law recognises them as candidates."  However, Tanzania's opposition parties have used boycotts to win concessions in the past.  There is a small chance that CCM may concede, begin the exercise afresh and thus force the opposition to participate.  Failing that, Chadema and its allies will embark on a protracted struggle against a formidable opponent as they gear up for next year's polls.


aljazeera--2019-11-27--Amnesty: Egypt using 'sinister' secretive agency to crush dissent

Egypt's government is using a secretive security agency responsible for investigating national security threats to detain peaceful protesters, journalists and critics on false charges without trial, Amnesty International has said in a new report.  The 60-page publication released on Wednesday detailed how Egypt's Supreme State Security Prosecution (SSSP) operates as a "sinister tool of repression", becoming increasingly central to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's sweeping crackdown on dissent.  "In Egypt today, the Supreme State Security Prosecution has stretched the definition of 'terrorism' to encompass peaceful protests, social media posts and legitimate political activities," said Philip Luther, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa director.  "The SSSP has become a central tool of repression whose primary goal appears to be arbitrarily detaining and intimidating critics, all in the name of counterterrorism," Luther said.  The group's damning report documents the cases of scores of human rights defenders and critics of the government who have been brought before the SSSP between 2013 - when el-Sisi seized power in a military coup - and 2019.  It has based its conclusions on more than 100 interviews and reviews of official court and police documents, medical records and videos as well as reports by NGOs and United Nations agencies.  Of the 138 highlighted cases, Amnesty said 56 individuals were arrested for participating in protests or for statements they made on social media, while 76 were arrested based on their political or human rights activities or background, and six were accused of involvement in incidents of violence.  The report also highlights the case of Al Jazeera journalist Mahmoud Hussein, who has been imprisoned without any formal charges in Egypt for more than 1,000 days.  Hussein, an Egyptian national who works for the Al Jazeera Arabic television channel in Qatar, was arrested on arrival in Egypt on December 20, 2016, while on a personal visit to see his family.  Amnesty said the SSSP is abusing its legal powers as a counterterrorism branch to stifle political dissent, with report author Hussein Baoumi saying "ridiculous" prosecutions have proliferated.  "There's no judicial oversight. We're talking about a completely closed circuit," Baoumi said. "If these cases were referred to trial, people would be acquitted at once," as the state's accusations are based on confidential police reports, he noted.  In September, Egyptian security forces carried out a harsh crackdown to stamp out small but rare anti-government protests. The SSSP played a critical role in sweeping up thousands of people on charges of "terrorism", the report said.  The prosecution agency renews people's detentions for months and years without evidence, denying them access to lawyers and a fair chance to appeal, it added.  Enforced disappearances were also highlighted in Amnesty's report, which documented 112 such cases for periods of up to 183 days by security forces.  Amnesty said SSSP investigations into allegations of torture and enforced disappearance by the police intelligence division, amount to a whitewash. The SSSP routinely buries evidence of police abuse and gives credence to confessions extracted with torture, drawing on court documents and interviews with dozens of witnesses.  Under el-Sisi, Egypt has seen a "meteoric rise" in cases of prosecution by SSSP, according to Amnesty. The report drew attention to the expansion of the branch's covert role since a court declared indefinite administrative detention unconstitutional in 2013.  There was no immediate comment from the government on Amnesty's report, but authorities have repeatedly denied charges of violations or police brutality. Authorities say they are fighting "terrorism" and have accused rights groups of working with foreign entities to undermine the state.  El-Sisi led the 2013 military's removal of Mohamed Morsi, the country's first democratically elected president, after his one-year rule sparked mass protests. Morsi, a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, died in June after collapsing inside his soundproof glass cage while on trial in a Cairo courtroom.


bbc--2019-01-27--The enduring appeal of violent jihad

The enduring appeal of violent jihad

The Islamic State group (IS) has lost its short-lived caliphate in the Middle East, with hundreds - possibly thousands - of would-be international jihadists stuck in limbo, and tempted to return home despite fears of arrest and imprisonment.  Yet the scourge of violent jihad - where extremists attack those they perceive to be enemies of Islam - has not gone away.  The hotel attack in Nairobi two weeks ago by the al-Qaeda-affiliated militant group al-Shabab was an uncomfortable reminder. Large swathes of north-west Africa are now vulnerable to attack by marauding jihadists. Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan remain ideal refuges for jihadists.  So just what is the enduring appeal of violent jihad for certain people around the world?  The decision to leave behind a normal, law-abiding life, often abandoning family and loved ones to embark on what is frequently a short, dangerous career is a personal one. Jihadist recruiters will play on the notion of victimhood, sacrifice and rallying to a higher cause in the name of religion.  For nearly 20 years now the internet has been awash with gruesome propaganda videos, some portraying the collective suffering of Muslims in various parts of the world, others depicting revenge attacks and punishments inflicted on perceived enemies.  These serve two purposes. The first is intended to arouse sympathy and even shame, that the viewer should be watching comfortably at home on his or her laptop while "your brothers and sisters are being murdered" - in say, Syria, Chechnya or the Palestinian Territories.  Secondly, the revenge videos appeal particularly to those of a sadistic nature, often attracting those with a violent criminal record.  Peer pressure can be the trigger that tips an individual over from being simply angry about events in the world to taking violent action.  In Jordan I interviewed a convict in prison who had been persuaded by his best friend from school to come and join him in Syria with IS. He did, then regretted it, escaped back to Jordan and was then sentenced to five years in prison.  Those who are especially vulnerable to recruitment are young men and women who have grown apart from their families or their societies.  For them, belonging to a secret, illegal organisation that appears to value them can be an attractive alternative. Even if it ends with them being told to strap on a suicide vest and blow themselves up in a market place.  There is a reason why the Middle East has long been a primary source of global jihadism. Corrupt, undemocratic and often oppressive regimes tend to drive peaceful political dissent underground.  In the early 21st Century Syria has been the most glaring example of this. After nearly eight years of civil war, with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad largely victorious against the rebels, the vast numbers of citizens who have disappeared into his jails provide a source of recruitment for extremist groups.  In Iraq, a country turned upside-down by the ill-fated US-led invasion of 2003, sectarian discrimination has played a major part in the rise of al-Qaida and then IS.  For eight years the oppression of the Sunni minority by the Shia-led government was so profound that IS (a Sunni militancy) was able to present itself as "the protector of Iraq's Sunnis" and easily take over much of the country. It is widely predicted that IS will look to exploit any future grievances.  Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Sahel (Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mauritania) all contain large areas of ungoverned or conflict-riven space where jihadists have been able to recruit, train and plan attacks.  In Afghanistan billions of dollars in international aid have failed to deliver the level of governance needed to stem the Taliban-led insurgency. Corruption is endemic and the police are seen by many as untrustworthy.  The International Crisis Group (ICG) says state institutions there are so fragile, they are unable to "deliver basic services to the majority of the population". In remote, rural areas many Afghans prefer the draconian justice and rule meted out by the Taliban to that of the government.  Desperate poverty, lack of employment opportunities and poor or absent governance have all combined to make the Sahel countries bordering the Sahara fertile ground for jihadist groups. Many recruits join up, not out of ideology, but simply because they see it as the only alternative to destitution.  Recruiters for al-Qaida, IS, the Taliban and others have long been able to exploit religious obedience to draw young men and women into their ranks.  Extremism expert Dr Erin Saltman says extremist groups often promote "a narrative of struggle, heroic sacrifice and spiritual obligation in order to establish legitimacy and connect with potential recruits".  It is notable that after al-Shabab carried out its attack on the Nairobi hotel it gave as its justification the decision by President Trump to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the third most sacred site in Islam after Mecca and Medina.  Jerusalem has been an emotional touchstone for many people in the Middle East and al-Shabab may be trying to broaden its appeal beyond Somalia.  The ideology behind violent jihad is likely to endure for some time yet, even though it is not shared by the vast majority of peaceful Muslims around the world.  Al-Qaeda has survived the death of Osama Bin Laden and still has its regional franchises in Asia and Africa. IS still has its followers, including in the UK, although since it is now deprived of a physical space to call its caliphate it may well struggle to attract recruits in such numbers.  On a global scale, containing and reducing violent jihad will require more than just good intelligence and police work. It will require far better and fairer governance, removing the drivers that spur people towards the violence that ruins so many lives.