Archive for July 7, 2016

European Union – EEAS (European External Action Service) | Report of the Middle East Quartet

July 7, 2016

REPORT Report of the Middle East Quartet

Brussels, 01/07/2016
160701_03_en

Source: European Union – EEAS (European External Action Service) | Report of the Middle East Quartet

At its meeting in Munich on 12 February 2016, the Middle East Quartet reiterated its concern that current trends are imperiling the viability of the two-state solution.  Underlining its commitment to supporting a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the Quartet agreed to prepare a report on the situation on the ground.

This report does not provide a complete review of the humanitarian, political, legal, and security aspects of the situation, or address final status issues.  It focuses on major threats to achieving a negotiated peace and offers recommendations to advance the two-state solution.

Summary

The Quartet reiterates that a negotiated two-state outcome is the only way to achieve an enduring peace that meets Israeli security needs and Palestinian aspirations for statehood and sovereignty, ends the occupation that began in 1967, and resolves all permanent status issues.

The Quartet recalls its previous statements and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and pledges its active support for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).  In this regard, the Quartet reiterates its commitment to continue working in coordination with key stakeholders, including regional countries and the UN Security Council, to restore hope in a political solution.

While the majority of people on both sides and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Mahmoud Abbas express their support for the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, the Quartet remains seriously concerned that continuing on the current course will make this prospect increasingly remote.  In particular, each of the following trends is severely undermining hopes for peace:

  • Continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians, and incitement to violence are greatly exacerbating mistrust and are fundamentally incompatible with a peaceful resolution;
  • The continuing policy of settlement construction and expansion, designation of land for exclusive Israeli use, and denial of Palestinian development is steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution; and
  • The illicit arms build-up and militant activity, continuing absence of Palestinian unity, and dire humanitarian situation in Gaza feed instability and ultimately impede efforts to achieve a negotiated solution.

The Quartet stresses the urgent need for affirmative steps to reverse each of these trends in order to prevent entrenching a one-state reality of perpetual occupation and conflict that is incompatible with realizing the national aspirations of both peoples.

The Quartet reiterates that unilateral actions by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community.

The Quartet stresses that while a permanent status agreement that ends the conflict can only be achieved through direct bilateral negotiations, important progress can be made now towards advancing the two-state solution on the ground.

The Quartet calls on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.

To that end, the Quartet emphasizes the importance of both parties complying with their basic commitments under existing agreements in order to promote this two-state reality and lay the groundwork for successful negotiations.

  1. Violence and Incitement

Continuing violence, recent acts of terrorism against Israelis, and incitement to violence are fundamentally incompatible with advancing a peaceful two-state solution and are greatly exacerbating mistrust between the communities.  Upholding the commitment to act effectively against violence, terrorism, and incitement is critical to rebuilding confidence and to avoiding escalation that will further undermine the prospects for peace.

Violence.  In the recent wave of violence that began in October 2015, there have been over 250 attacks and attempted attacks by Palestinians against Israelis.  At least 30 Israelis have been killed in stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks, and a bombing.  In the most intense period, there were three to four attacks per day across Israel, Jerusalem, and the West Bank.  These terrorist attacks, which have been carried out mostly by young, unaffiliated individuals, contribute to the sense among Israelis of living under constant threat.

During this period, at least 140 Palestinians have been killed while carrying out or reportedly carrying out attacks.  At least 60 more were killed by Israeli Security Forces during Palestinian demonstrations, clashes, or military operations.

The frequency of attacks and clashes declined significantly in 2016.  This slowdown is due in large part to the effective efforts of the Palestinian Authority Security Forces, who have successfully thwarted attacks, seized weapons, and arrested suspected extremists.  Continued security coordination between both sides has also played a key part in reducing violence.  The importance of these factors has been recognized by both Israeli and Palestinian security officials and political leaders.

Recent terrorist attacks, however, like the Jerusalem bus bombing in April and the deadly café shooting in Tel Aviv in June, where four Israelis were killed, are tragic examples that the underlying causes of the recurring cycles of violence remain.

During this period, Israel has responded by expanding the use of administrative detention, resuming punitive house demolitions and enforcing closures of whole districts, which can further exacerbate tensions.  Some senior Israeli security officials have expressed concern about cases, including several captured on video, in which excessive force appeared to be used when there was no immediate threat.  One soldier has been indicted for manslaughter.

Settler violence against Palestinians, including assaults, vandalism, and the destruction of property, remains a serious concern.  While there has been a significant decline in the number of attacks over the past three years, there have been some especially severe incidents, including the horrific arson attack in Douma in 2015 that left three dead and the burning to death of a Palestinian youth in 2014.  Such attacks, which senior Israeli officials have called terrorist acts, contribute to a continuing sense of vulnerability among Palestinians.

Israel has increased efforts to curb settler violence by establishing a special police unit and enhancing preventive and punitive measures applied against extremist groups. While prosecutions of suspected perpetrators have increased, and there have been some high profile convictions, the overall conviction rate for Israeli extremists accused of violence remains significantly lower than for Palestinians.

Incitement to Violence.  Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks are often glorified publicly as “heroic martyrs.” Many widely circulated images depict individuals committing terrorist acts with slogans encouraging violence.  The spreading of incitement to violence on social media has gained momentum since October 2015, and is particularly affecting the youth.

Hamas and other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit and widespread forms of incitement.  These groups use media outlets to glorify terrorism and openly call for violence against Jews, including instructing viewers on how to carry out stabbings. Following the April 2016 bombing of an Israeli bus that injured at least 21 people, Hamas staged a rally celebrating the attack.

Some members of Fatah have publicly supported attacks and their perpetrators, as well as encouraged violent confrontation.  In the midst of this recent wave of violence, a senior Fatah official referred to perpetrators as “heroes and a crown on the head of every Palestinian.”  Fatah social media has shown attackers superimposed next to Palestinian leaders following terrorist attacks.

The Palestinian Authority leadership has repeatedly made statements expressing opposition to violence against civilians and senior officials have publicly maintained a commitment to non-violent resistance.  Regrettably, however, Palestinian leaders have not consistently and clearly condemned specific terrorist attacks.  And streets, squares and schools have been named after Palestinians who have committed acts of terrorism.

Extremist ideologies espousing hate, racism, and violence have a dangerous influence on both sides. Israeli extremists and perpetrators of “Price Tag” attacks often call for “Death to Arabs,” and some social media sites have included references to justifications for violence against Palestinians. In at least one notable case, a video celebrating the Douma arson attack was widely circulated. Among other incidents, some Israeli leaders and officials have spoken in support of the use of lethal force against Palestinian assailants.

II. Settlement Expansion, Land Designations, and Denial of Palestinian Development

The continuing policy of settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, designation of land for exclusive Israeli use, and denial of Palestinian development, including the recent high rate of demolitions, is steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution.  This raises legitimate questions about Israel’s long-term intentions, which are compounded by the statements of some Israeli ministers that there should never be a Palestinian state.  In fact, the transfer of greater powers and responsibilities to Palestinian civil authority in Area C contemplated by commitments in prior agreements has effectively been stopped, and in some ways reversed, and should be resumed to advance the two-state solution and prevent a one-state reality from taking hold.

Designating Land for Exclusive Israeli Use.  Area C comprises 60 percent of the West Bank and includes the majority of agricultural lands, natural resources, and land reserves.  Some 70 percent of Area C has been unilaterally taken for exclusive Israeli use, mostly through inclusion in the boundaries of local and regional settlement councils or designations of “state land.”  Nearly all of the remaining 30 percent of Area C, much of which is private Palestinian property, is effectively off limits for Palestinian development because it requires permits from the Israeli military authorities that are almost never granted.

The process of designating additional “state land” in Area C, which potentially impacts any land that cannot clearly be established as Palestinian private property, is ongoing. In March of 2016, over 2,000 dunams south of Jericho were declared state land, and in August 2014, nearly 4,000 dunams west of Bethlehem were declared state land.

Settlement Construction and Expansion.  Since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993, the population of settlements has more than doubled, with a threefold increase in Area C alone. There are currently at least 370,000 Israelis living in some 130 settlements in Area C, including at least 85,000 deep in the West Bank.  Combined with some 200,000 in East Jerusalem, this brings the total settler population to at least 570,000.

The policy of steadily constructing and expanding settlements and related infrastructure continues.  Between 2009 and 2014, the West Bank settler population increased by over 80,000, including at least 16,000 deep in the West Bank.  During this period, construction began on over 9,000 new settlement units in Area C and over 3,000 in East Jerusalem.  Since mid-2014, there has been a marked slowdown in the advancement of plans and issuance of tenders for West Bank settlement units.  However, the rate of construction starts during this period has remained consistent, as there are previously approved plans and tenders that allow building to continue even in the absence of new approvals.

Moreover, the process of retroactively “legalizing” outposts has the practical impact of expanding the footprint of existing settlements, if not effectively creating new ones.  Approximately 100 settlement outposts in Area C have been built without formal Israeli Government approval. Under Israeli law, these outposts are illegal and must eventually either be retroactively authorized or removed.  The Government’s approach has been to pursue “legalization” when possible.  Over the past decade, 19 outposts have been “legalized” and 13 others are reportedly in that process, including several that were explicitly supposed to have been dismantled under the Quartet Road Map.  The rest remain pending government action.  Dismantling of these outposts has been very rare, and in cases where the court has ordered their removal, the Government has sometimes provided land for relocation in Area C.

Denying Palestinian Development.  The Israel military retains full authority over development in Area C, including planning and zoning for housing, industrial zones, tourism sites, and essential infrastructure, such as roads and electricity lines.  While settlements have continued to grow, there has been a near complete cessation of issuance of approvals for private Palestinian development or construction in Area C.  In fact, only one permit for Palestinian housing construction in Area C was reportedly approved in 2014, and there do not appear to have been any in 2015.  In the five-year period from 2009 to 2013, only 34 building permits were approved for Palestinians in Area C, out of at least 2,000 submissions.

All structures lacking permits from the Israeli authorities in Area C and East Jerusalem are potentially subject to demolition orders.  There are over 5,000 demolition orders pending against Israeli structures in Area C, and over 11,000 demolition orders pending against Palestinian structures, three-quarters of which are on private Palestinian land. Only a small percentage are executed every year.  However, as Palestinians are consistently denied permits to build legally, they are left with few options but to build without permits.

There was a significant increase in the number of Palestinian structures demolished across the West Bank in the first four months of this year, with some 500 demolitions of Palestinian structures by the Israeli authorities and nearly 800 Palestinians displaced, more than in all of 2015.  In East Jerusalem, 64 Palestinian structures were demolished from January to June of 2016.  Vulnerable Bedouin and farming communities are most heavily impacted by these demolitions.  Although many of these were not dwellings, the loss of structures such as water wells, solar panels, and animal shelters has impacted the livelihoods of over 2,500 people since the beginning of the year.

Palestinian development is also constrained by complex physical and administrative restrictions on the movement of people and goods, which Israel justifies as necessary for its security, including of settlements.  These restrictions, including temporary and longstanding checkpoints, add costs to importers and exporters, limit access to natural resources and agricultural land, and discourage private sector investment.  While some restrictions have been eased and the number of temporary permits for work in Israel has increased to nearly 70,000 in 2016, Palestinians still face substantial difficulties in accessing basic services and employment opportunities.  Moreover, these restrictions amplify the humiliation of living under military occupation and frustrate many aspects of Palestinians daily life, including going to school, seeking medical attention, or attending family gatherings.

III. The GazaStrip and Palestinian Governance

The illicit arms buildup and militant activity by Hamas, the lack of control of Gaza by the Palestinian Authority, and the dire humanitarian situation, exacerbated by the closures of the crossings, feed instability and ultimately impede efforts to achieve a negotiated solution.  Preventing the use of territory for attacks against Israel is a key commitment that is essential to long-term peace and security.  In the absence of significant steps by all sides to address the deteriorating conditions, the risk increases of a new escalation of hostilities.

Continuing Militant Build-Up.  The illicit arms buildup in Gaza by Hamas and other Palestinian groups is continuing, including the building of tunnels, the smuggling of weapons, and the production and launching of rockets towards Israel.  Such activities increase the risk of renewed conflict, divert resources from humanitarian efforts, and threaten the lives of civilians in Israel and Gaza.

While the 2014 ceasefire is otherwise holding it remains fragile, with at least 160 rockets and mortars fired at Israel, keeping thousands of people on both sides under constant threat of attacks.  In the course of the 2014 conflict, Israel discovered 14 tunnels penetrating its territory.  Recently, two more tunnels were discovered, leading to a temporary escalation in which militants fired 40 mortars and eight rockets at Israel and the IDF conducted 13 airstrikes. At least four civilians in Gaza have been killed in Israeli airstrikes since the 2014 ceasefire.

There have been a significant number of attempts to smuggle dual-use materials restricted by Israel that can be used for weapons manufacturing and tunneling.  In early April, Israel suspended private import of cement to Gaza for 45 days following the diversion of a substantial amount from its intended legitimate beneficiaries.

Lack of Palestinian Unity.  Reuniting Palestinians under a single, democratic and legitimate Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles remains a priority.  This is critical for the fulfillment of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.  The constraints of the occupation, the absence of elections, and budgetary pressures contribute to growing public discontent and undermine the popular legitimacy of Palestinian institutions and leadership.  The division also damages Gaza’s economic development, hinders basic service delivery, and impedes the reconstruction process.

Dire Humanitarian Situation.  Severe poverty, a crippling unemployment rate, and the chronic underdevelopment of Gaza further feed instability and frustration that could create the conditions for renewed conflict.  1.3 million Gazans are in need of sustained humanitarian assistance, including temporary shelter and food.  Most people have electricity less than half of the time, while only five percent of the water is safe for human consumption.

Reconstruction also remains inadequate, despite notable easing measures implemented by the Israeli government and some visible signs of progress.  With international support, more than 90 percent of schools as well as 80 percent of electricity and 60 per cent of water infrastructure have been repaired or rebuilt following the 2014 Gaza conflict.  1.3 million tons of construction material has entered Gaza since the last conflict, including a recent average of over 10,000 tons per day, allowing for reconstruction of the housing, electricity and water infrastructure as well as rejuvenation of the private sector.  Over three-quarters of houses that suffered severe damage have yet to be repaired, however, in part because only 40 percent of the donor funds pledged for Gaza in Cairo in 2014 have actually been delivered.

In 2014, Israel partially lifted a seven-year ban on all exports from Gaza to Israel and the West Bank, which led to an increase in goods exiting Gaza.  Nevertheless, total exports out of Gaza are currently only 17 percent of what they were before Hamas took control.  The Israeli restrictions on external trade and access to fishing waters contribute to food insecurity and humanitarian aid dependency. Basic materials needed to restore agricultural and manufacturing facilities are considered dual use and their entry is restricted.  And while the number of Palestinians exiting Gaza via Israel has grown during the past few years, such travel – including to the West Bank and East Jerusalem – remains severely limited, primarily restricted to medical and other humanitarian cases, businesspeople, and religious visits.

Recommendations

The Quartet calls on each side to independently demonstrate, through policies and actions, a genuine commitment to the two-state solution and refrain from unilateral steps that prejudge the outcome of final status negotiations.  The Quartet emphasizes the importance of both parties complying with theirbasiccommitments in order to advance a peaceful two state reality on the ground and create the conditions for successful final status negotiations.  The Quartet has the following specific recommendations:

  1. Both sides should work to de-escalate tensions by exercising restraint and refraining from provocative actions and rhetoric.
  2. Both sides should take all necessary steps to prevent violence and protect the lives and property of all civilians, including through continuing security coordination and strengthening the capacity, capability and authority of the Palestinian Authority Security Forces.
  3. The Palestinian Authority should act decisively and take all steps within its capacity to cease incitement to violence and strengthen ongoing efforts to combat terrorism, including by clearly condemning all acts of terrorism.
  4. Israel should cease the policy of settlement construction and expansion, designating land for exclusive Israeli use, and denying Palestinian development.
  5. Israel should implement positive and significant policy shifts, including transferring powers and responsibilities in Area C, consistent with the transition to greater Palestinian civil authority contemplated by prior agreements. Progress in the areas of housing, water, energy, communications, agriculture, and natural resources, along with significantly easing Palestinian movement restrictions, can be made while respecting Israel’s legitimate security needs.
  6. The Palestinian leadership should continue their efforts to strengthen institutions, improve governance, and develop a sustainable economy.  Israel should take all necessary steps to enable this process, in line with the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee recommendations.
  7. All sides must continue to respect the ceasefire in Gaza, and the illicit arms buildup and militant activities must be terminated.
  8. Israel should accelerate the lifting of movement and access restrictions to and from Gaza, with due consideration of its need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.
  9. Gaza and the West Bank should be reunified under a single, legitimate and democratic Palestinian authority on the basis of the PLO platform and Quartet principles and the rule of law, including control over all armed personnel and weapons in accordance with existing agreements.

10. Both parties should foster a climate of tolerance, including through increasing interaction and cooperation in a variety of fields – economic, professional, educational, cultural – that strengthen the foundations for peace and countering extremism.

The Quartet stresses the urgent need for such affirmative steps to reverse current trends and advance the two-state solution on the ground.

The Quartet stresses the significance of the Arab Peace Initiative (API), with its vision for comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and, in that context, the opportunity for building a regional security framework, and encourages further dialogue on that basis.  In this regard, the Quartet welcomes the call by the Egyptian President to Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab leaders to follow the historic path towards peace taken by Israel and Egypt 37 years ago.

The Quartet also welcomes the Joint Communique issued in Paris on June 3 and its support for a negotiated two-state solution.

The Quartet encourages the international community to accelerate its efforts to address the dire humanitarian, reconstruction, and recovery needs of the people in Gaza, including expediting the disbursement of assistance pledges.

The Quartet invites the parties to engage with it on implementing the recommendations of this report and creating the conditions for the resumption of meaningful negotiations that resolve all final status issues.

Bennett: Kidnap Hamas officials to get soldiers’ bodies back

July 7, 2016

Bennett: Kidnap Hamas officials to get soldiers’ bodies back Jewish Home minister says Israel needs ‘leverage’ to secure return of soldiers’ remains held in Gaza Strip

By Times of Israel staff

July 7, 2016, 11:52 pm

Source: Bennett: Kidnap Hamas officials to get soldiers’ bodies back | The Times of Israel

Education Minister Naftali Bennett receives the Biton Committee report on July 7, 2016. (Flash90)

Education Minister Naftali Bennett on Thursday said Israel should start kidnapping senior Hamas members to gain leverage in its bit to secure the release of two Israeli civilians and two bodies of IDF soldiers held in the Gaza Strip.

The Jewish Home party leader has been strident in his criticism of the government’s failure to bring back the remains of Lt. Hadar Goldin and Sgt. Oron Shaul, and voted against a rapprochement deal with Turkey that was criticized for not guaranteeing pressure from Ankara on Hamas.

 “My policies are consistent over the years,” he said in a Radio Darom interview on Thursday, “complete opposition to disproportionate deals to free terrorists, and certainly in exchange for bodies.”

“Once, in a situation like this, we would go and kidnap from the other side,” Bennett, a former commando, said, apparently suggesting the kidnapping of senior Hamas officials.

In the past, he said, Israel would kidnap Syrian officers in order to gain diplomatic bargaining chips. Bennett said the military shouldn’t sit on its hands and “wait for the release of prisoners. We need to be aggressive and operate for ourselves.”

Bennett was an officer in the elite Sayeret Matkal commando unit, which abducted two senior Lebanese terrorists — Abdel Karim Obeid in 1989 and Mustafa Dirani in 1994 — in order to use as bargaining chips to trade for missing Israeli Air Force serviceman Ron Arad.

“We need to create leverage in order to free the bodies of our soldiers, and not release terrorists,” he said.

Former Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh delivers a speech in front of portraits of late Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini (left), and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (right), at a rally in Tehran, February 11, 2012. (AP/Vahid Salemi)

Former Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh delivers a speech in front of portraits of late Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini (left), and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (right), at a rally in Tehran, February 11, 2012. (AP/Vahid Salemi)

Bennett opposed the deal to reestablish diplomatic ties with Turkey, which stipulated Israel would pay $20 million in compensation to the families of 10 Turks killed in an IDF raid on a ship attempting to run the blockade on the Gaza Strip in 2010.

“Reconciliation with Turkey is important at this time and is in the interest of the State of Israel,” Bennett said before the cabinet voted on the deal at the end of June. “But at the same time paying compensation to the perpetrators of terrorist acts is a dangerous precedent that the State of Israel will regret in the future. Israel must not pay compensation to terrorists who tried to harm the IDF.”

The rapprochement agreement faced sharp criticism from the families of the Israeli soldiers whose remains are held by Hamas in Gaza, as well as the families of two Israeli citizens believed to be captive in the coastal enclave.

The parents of Shaul, killed in Israel’s 2014 war in the Strip and whose body is being held there, and family of Avraham Abera Mengistu, who disappeared into the Strip later in 2014 and who is believed to be still alive, had long petitioned for the agreement with Turkey to included a demand that their loved ones be returned to Israel. The parents of Goldin, also killed the 2014 war and whose body is also help by Hamas, have joined the protest against the deal.

The father of Hisham al-Sayed, the second Israeli held in Gaza, has called on the other families to cease their campaigns to pressure the government.

Bennett has recently called for aggressive measures to crack down on Palestinian terrorism in the wake of last week’s deadly terror attacks in the West Bank.

Suggestions included in his plan, he said, were the imprisonment or expulsion of terrorists’ families; the arrest of all Hamas operatives in the West Bank; the destruction of thousands of illegally built homes in the West Bank; the complete closure of the villages of assailants; resumption of full military activity in West Bank areas that are under the control of the Palestinian Authority; preventing Palestinian vehicles from traveling on Route 60 — the West Bank’s main north-to-south road; and disabling the internet in the entire Hebron region.

5 Things You Should Know About the FBI Hearing With James Comey

July 7, 2016

5 Things You Should Know About the FBI Hearing With James Comey, PJ MediaTyler O’Neil, July 7, 2016

FBI directorFILE – In this April 5, 2016 file photo, FBI Director James Comey speaks in Detroit. Comey hinted at an event in London on Thursday, April 21, 2016, that the FBI paid more than $1 million to break into the locked iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino attackers. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio, File)

On Thursday, FBI Director James Comey testified in front of the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about his recommendation for the FBI to issue no charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The hearing went on for nearly four hours, but PJ Media has compiled the 5 big statements during the event.

Just a brief recap: On Tuesday, Comey made a speech declaring Clinton’s use of a private email server as “extremely careless,” but effectively exonerating her from any federal charges. Many saw this as a “double standard,” especially because Comey’s comments revealed Clinton’s declarations on the email scandal to be huge lies — just check out this Reason TV video on it.

Republicans and Democrats asked important questions, and Comey responded or failed to respond. Here are the five big moments you shouldn’t miss:

1. This was not a Republican witch-hunt.

North Carolina Republican Representative Mark Walker asked Comey about the political nature of the FBI investigation. Comey made clear that “it wasn’t Republicans or Congress who asked for the investigation,” but it was suggested by the State Department Inspector General. “This was not a Republican witch-hunt,” he explicitly said.

Walker pointed out that many of the Congresswomen who have praised Comey as a public servant after his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton were the same people who attacked the FBI for running an investigation on “frivolous” issues earlier. These Democrats also argued that the entire investigation was a “Republican witch-hunt,” when it was not.

2. Hillary’s email was less secure than a Gmail account that hackers are paid $180 to hack into.

Iowa Republican Congressman Rod Blum asked Comey about the security of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. The FBI director said that yes, “even a basic free account, a Gmail account, had better security than she did.” Blum emphasized that people are paid roughly $180 to hack into a Gmail account, suggesting that it is relatively easy to do so, and that Clinton’s server was extraordinarily unprotected from potential foreign hackers.

Comey agrees that Hillary’s security was weaker than Gmail’s, which people are paid only about $180 to hack into @PJMedia_com

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences

July 7, 2016

Hillary — Lies, Benghazi, Murders and Consequences, Dan Miller’s Blog, July 7, 2016

(The views expressed in this post are mine and are not necessarily those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

Hillary Clinton, who if elected would be President Obama Part Two, is a world-class liar. Whenever She considers truth damaging to Herself — as it usually is — She lies. Normally, She gets away with it. She lied about her State Department e-mails: guilty as hell and free as a bird. She lied about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and, thus far, has got away with it. This year, it is up to the American people to do the only thing we can to prevent Her from becoming President Obama Part Two. Our only way to do that will be to deny Her what She considers “Her turn” to continue Obama’s quest to destroy America.

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

Guilty as Hell and free as a bird

First, a flash-back

She lied misspoke, as She often does.

On July 5th, during FBI Director Comey’s address on his recommendation that She not be indicted, She was revealed as a consummate liar. She then got adverse press, even from the lamebrain media. For her lies evidenced there alone, She should not become “our” president. She will not if we stand firm. Please see The FBI Recommendation Not to Indict Hillary Will Help Trump.

This brings us to The Benghazi Clusterdunk

The following video shows that the Obama-Clinton administration should, and could, have sent American military resources to prevent American deaths in Benghazi. For political reasons, resources were not sent: elections were comings soon, so Islamic terror needed to have been defeated and nation-building had to have been successful in Lybia. Both were lies.

The next video provides what we know about the Clinton-Obama administration refusals to send American military help. There is much that we don’t know, because of the Obama administration chose to provide lies instead of truthful answers.

Hillary lied, Obama lied. Americans died and Obama got a second term in office. Now Hillary wants Her “turn.”

Knowing full well that the attack had nothing to do with a poorly made video — for which the maker was gratuitously jailed — Hillary and Obama lied. Ambassador Rice may also have lied intentionally. Either that or she was given a political spin instead of accurate information and had no reason to believe that she had been lied to.

September 25, 2011

According to the Majority Report on the Benghazi clusterdunk, as summarized by Robert Spencer,

  • Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
  • With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “[i]f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
  • The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
  • A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154] [to avoid offending the locals by wearing military attire — DM]
  • None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
  • The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]

Part II

  • Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
  • The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
  • Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
  • According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
  • On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
  • After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
  • Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
  • The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
  • A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]

Part III

  • During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
  • The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
  • When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
  • In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
  • Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
  • In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
  • Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]

And now, two wrap-ups:

Conclusions

Hillary lied, Obama lied and Islamist al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists murdered Americans because no American military resources were sent, even though available. Their deaths were not only unnecessary, they were and remain a disgrace.

There is now only one action that we can take, and that will be on November 8th. Then, we will vote either for Obama Part Two becoming Obama Part One, thereby affirming their disgraceful actions and inactions or disown them. It’s up to us to disown them both.

“Italian Government Collapse More Than Just A Possibility”

July 7, 2016

Italian Government Collapse More Than Just A Possibility”

by Tyler Durden

Jul 6, 2016 11:54 PM

Source: “Italian Government Collapse More Than Just A Possibility” | Zero Hedge

Submitted by Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

Four new polls show comedian Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) ahead of prime minister  Matteo Renzi’s Democratic Party (PD) were an election held today.

The next election will be no later than May 23, 2018. Renzi promised to step down if he fails a constitutional reform referendum later this year.

The reform referendum will likely be held no later than this October.

Beppe Grillo – Comedian Founder of Five Star Movement

Renzi Rocked Yet Again

Please consider Renzi Rocked as Five Star Surges in Polls.

The populist Five Star Movement has emerged as Italy’s leading political party, overtaking Matteo Renzi’s ruling Democratic party (PD) in four separate opinion polls that have exposed the growing vulnerability of the country’s centre-left prime minister.

The primacy of the Five Star Movement, which is led by the sardonic comedian Beppe Grillo and has called for a referendum on ditching the euro, reflects a shift in public opinion against Mr Renzi that will heighten fears of a return to political instability and uncertainty in the single currency’s third largest economy.

“A government collapse is more than just a possibility, it is a scenario that we are looking at very closely,” said Federico Santi, an analyst at the Eurasia Group consultancy. “The trend has been clearly bad for the ruling party and favourable to the Five Star Movement, driven by issues — like migration, the banking troubles and corruption scandals — that are not going to go away. It’s hard to see what it could take for Renzi and the PD to make a comeback at this point.”

According to polls released on Wednesday by Ipsos, the Five Star Movement is supported by 30.6 per cent of Italians, compared with 29.8 per cent for the PD. Similar polls in January had Mr Renzi’s party leading the Five Star Movement by nearly six percentage points. In the 2014 European elections, shortly after Mr Renzi took office, the PD defeated the Five Star Movement by nearly 20 percentage points.

Three other surveys taken after the Brexit vote also showed the Five Star Movement ahead, with the next national elections due in early 2018.

One by Demos released on July 1 showed the party ahead by a margin of 32.3 per cent to 30.2 per cent over Mr Renzi’s PD. Others by Euromedia and EMG showed the Five Star Movement with narrower leads of 0.5 and 0.4 percentage points. Another poll showed the Democratic party hanging on to a narrow lead.

The polls look even darker for Mr Renzi if the likelihood of a run-off between the two largest parties — which is called for under Italy’s new electoral law if no party exceeds 40 per cent — is taken into account. In those scenarios, the Five Star Movement would defeat the PD by as much as ten percentage points, as right-wing voters would coalesce around the protest party.

Beneath the surface, there is increasing talk of what might happen should his efforts fail. Most likely, said Mr Santi, a technocratic government would have to take charge, rather than a quick move to fresh elections. But no clear candidate has yet emerged who would take the reins.

Credibility of the Italian Political Class at Stake.

Renzi asked voters to stick with him and promised an aggressive campaign in favor of the referendum.

His rationale is laughable: “The referendum is not crucial for the destiny of an individual, but for the future credibility of the Italian political class,” said Renzi.

Are voters really supposed to rally around the notion of saving the credibility of the ruling political class?

Wow! The statement is so ridiculous one has to wonder if Renzi secretly wants the referendum defeated.

40% the New Majority

The referendum would shrink the Italian senate and give a majority of parliament to any political party that could achieve 40% of the vote in national elections.

If no party achieved 40%, a runoff would take place and the winner would automatically receive a majority of parliament.

Curiously, M5S is against this reform although it may the best way for Grillo to get the vote he seeks on leaving the Euro.

Renzi Stung in Mayoral Elections

In recent mayoral elections Renzi’s party went down in defeat in in Rome, Turin, Naples and Trieste. Rome and Turin went to the Five Star Movement.

For mayoral details and details of the constitutional referendum, please see Stinging Defeat of Renzi in Italian Mayoral Elections; 40% the Proposed New Majority

Italian Banking System Near Collapse

Monte dei Paschi, the oldest bank in the world, and Italy’s third largest is so woefully undercapitalized that even the ECB recognizes that fact.

On July 4, I commented the ECB Triggers Another Bank Shares Selloff, Tells Monte dei Paschi to Shed More Assets.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the ECB are at odds with Renzi over how to fix €360 billion in nonperforming loans in the Italian banking system.

Merkel rebuffed Renzi’s request for state sponsored bank bailouts on four occasions.

On June 30, I asked Italy’s Zombie Banks on Death Bed, Bail-Ins Coming?

Merkel chastised Renzi, “We wrote the rules for the credit system, we cannot change them every two years.

Under a bail-in scheme bondholders and depositors will take a huge hit. Voters are already angry over the bail-in of bondholder of much smaller Banca Etruria last December.

In Italy, individual investors own close to €200 billion in Italian bank bonds. Imagine the anger should they lose even a portion of their investments.

This is why Italy Threatens to Defy Merkel, Brussels Over bank Bailouts.

Italy on the Euro

What has the Euro done for Germany vs. Italy?

Voters Hold the Key

Yesterday I asked Can the EU Survive as a Prison? Who Has the Keys?

The short answer is voters hold the key, and they are already mad as hell. If bail-ins happen, it will be the end of the Renzi government for sure.

Renzi Slams Deutsche Bank

ZeroHedge has an excellent article out today on the state of Deutsche Bank through the eyes of Renzi.

Please consider A Furious Italian Prime Minister Slams Deutsche Bank As Europe’s Most Insolvent Bank

 In a surprising admission of reality, none other than Italy’s prime minister Matteo Renzi, “went there” and slammed Deutsche Bank as the true “derivative problem” facing Europe.

As Reuters adds, speaking at a joint news conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, Renzi said other European banks had much bigger problems than their Italian counterparts.

“If this non-performing loan problem is worth one, the question of derivatives at other banks, at big banks, is worth one hundred. This is the ratio: one to one hundred,” Renzi said

So just like that the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine is activated, because now that Deutsche Bank’s dirty laundry has been exposed for all to see, Renzi’s gambit is clear: if Merkel does not relent on bailing out Italian banks, the collapse of Italian banks will assure the failure of Deutsche Bank in kind.

Also see Diving Into Deutsche Bank’s “Passion to Perform” Balance Sheet.

This kind of insanity is precisely why the euro is doomed.

Get Out Now!

I repeat my warning from last December: Get Your Money Out of Italian Banks Now!

Why Trump Will Win in November

July 7, 2016

Why Trump Will Win in November, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz, July 7, 2016

hj_1

Reprinted from Breitbart.com.

In elections generally – but this one in particular – things are not always what they seem. Take the apparent exculpation of Hillary by FBI director James Comey. The Democrats responded with a statement that the issue had now been “resolved” because the target had not been indicted. But not so fast. The failure to indict was not an exoneration, and what the public witnessed – the secret meeting between the head of Justice and the target’s husband, the job offer to her would-be prosecutor, and the FBI’s  dossier of her misdeeds – was in effect a second trial, and it came with a conviction. The former Secretary of State had lied to Congress and the public, and not about private matters like sexual escapades with interns. She had lied about national security matters, and was reckless in handling secrets that affect the safety of all Americans. Worse, the fact she appeared to be getting away with a serious crime was a dramatic confirmation of Trump’s campaign narrative: the system is corrupt, the fix is in, I will change all this.

The Comey episode also turned a lot of Republican heads – most notably Paul Ryan’s – that had been openly skeptical of Trump’s candidacy, and lukewarm in endorsing his campaign. Until that moment, the failure of some Republicans to rally behind the Republican nominee, indeed to refrain from seconding Democrat attacks, has been the chief weakness of Trump’s candidacy. When Trump objected to an obviously biased judge – a member of “La Raza” and opponent of securing the border – Ryan and other Republicans joined the Democrats in the ludicrous charge that Trump was a racist. (What Republican candidate in the last thirty years have the Democrats not slandered as racist?) But Ryan is not attacking Trump now. Instead he is calling on officials to remove Hillary’s security clearance – a strong signal to voters that she is not fit to be commander-in-chief, and a powerful reinforcement of Trump’s campaign theme.

At the moment, Trump is in a virtual dead heat with Hillary, which is remarkable considering the slanderous attacks on his character not only by Democrats but by the chorus of #NeverTrump Republicans who have also called him a sexist and xenophobe, and have compared him to Mussolini and Hitler. These negatives have hurt him but will ultimately fail for the same reason that the anti-Trump attacks in the primary failed. Trump is not an unknown quantity. He has been in front of the American public for thirty or forty years. Nothing in the public record would validate the charge Trump is a racist, let alone Hitler. Consequently these negatives are unlikely to over-ride the actual issues when voters make the judgments that will determine the election. At the same time, the obviousness of the slanders merely serves to confirm Trump’s narrative that corrupt elites fear him and will do anything to prevent him from upsetting their applecarts.

The reason Trump will win in November is that national security is at the top of voter concerns and Trump has been a strong advocate on this front. Beginning with his promise to build a wall, made national security issues – vetting Syrian Muslim refugees, rebuilding the military, “bombing the sh-t” out of ISIS and naming the enemy – have been centerpieces of his campaign. Of course he has also had help from the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino and Orlando, and from a feckless Obama who refuses to recognize the Islamist threat. But so did Mitt Romney, who had Benghazi and Fort Hood and the same feckless commander-in-chief to work with. Romney, however, chose not to do so. He took the war issue off the table when he embraced Obama’s foreign policy in the third presidential debate and never tried to make it central again.

Since World War II no Republican has won the popular vote in a presidential election where national security has not been a primary issue. The one seeming exception is Bush’s victory in 2000. But Bush did not win the popular vote even though he was able to get the necessary majority in the electoral college.  In this election, Trump has instinctively seized the high ground on national security. He has put the disasters of Obama’s Middle East retreats front and center, and challenged the crippling denial of the commander-in-chief and his failure to take appropriate measures to defeat our enemies at home and abroad.

Thanks to nearly eight years of a party in power that refuses to secure our borders and is more interested in disarming law-abiding Americans than confronting the terror threat in our midst, national security is now a primary issue on the minds of all Americans. Donald Trump speaks to those concerns in a way that the damaged and compromised Hillary cannot. Her fingerprints are all over the disastrous Obama policies in the Middle East. National security is an issue that crosses party lines and also gender lines. Even more important, it is an issue that unifies the Republican coalition, whose current disunity is Trump’s greatest weakness. With the fallout from Hillary’s server fail as a backdrop, Trump should be able to bring his party together at the upcoming convention, and go on to secure a victory in November.

Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel

July 7, 2016

Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel

Source: Iranian military official: We have 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready to hit Israel – Arab-Israeli Conflict – Jerusalem Post

President Hassan Rouhani said the last year’s nuclear deal “was the cheapest way to achieve Iran’s goals and interests.”

Speaking in Tehran on Saturday at an iftar meal breaking the Ramadan fast, Rouhani said the pre-Iran nuclear-deal era is past and Iran now needs to take advantage of the new atmosphere to pursue its “national interests more than before,” Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

The country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for student associations to establish a “unified anti-US and anti-Zionist front” among the Muslim world’s students, Tasnim News Agency reported.
“By using advanced means of communication and in cyberspace, general campaigns can be formed by Muslim students based on the opposition to the policies of the US and the Zionist regime of Israel so that when needed, millions of young Muslim students create a big movement in the Islamic world,” he said.

Khamenei also warned against plots by enemies seeking to sabotage the country.

Separately, on Saturday, Fars News Agency reported a senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards as having said Israel’s Iran Dome anti-rocket system has vulnerabilities that were revealed in recent wars.
On a similar note, the deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen.

Hossein Salami, said on Friday “more than 100,000 missiles are ready to fly from Lebanon,” according to Tasnim.

“Today, the grounds for the annihilation and collapse of the Zionist regime are [present] more than ever,” he declared, saying there are “tens of thousands of destructive long-range missiles” from Islamic territories aiming at all of “occupied” Israel.

“If the Zionists make a wrong move, all the occupied territories will come under attack from dedicated fighters and, God willing, the territories will be liberated,” Salami warned.

On Friday, Rouhani accused Western powers of trying to exploit differences between the world’s Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims to divert attention from the Israel-Palestinian conflict, state television reported.

“We stand with the dispossessed Palestinian nation,” he said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Nigel Farage Press Conference: Brexit – Let’s Get Things Started

July 7, 2016
Published on Jul 6, 2016

http://www.ukipmeps.org | http://www.ukip.org/join
• European Parliament, Strasbourg, 06 July 2016

 

We Saved Our Democracy

July 7, 2016

We Saved Our Democracy, Pat Condell via YouTube, July 7, 2016

(Perhaps American will vote for her own Brexit on November 8th. — DM)

French Prisons: Universities of Jihad

July 7, 2016

French Prisons: Universities of Jihad, Clarion Project, Leslie Shaw, July 7, 2016

PrisonMuslimHP_0_0Photo: Video screenshot)

Sociologist and author Farhad Khosrokhavar has estimated that Muslims make up between 50 and 80 percent of prison inmates in France. Given that Muslims account for between seven and eight percent of the French population, this means that they are either more prone to crime than the indigenous French population, or that they are victims of discrimination by French law enforcement.

Given that many offenders are not behind bars but out on parole, wearing electronic bracelets, under house arrest or were not jailed on conviction but benefited from the leniency of the criminal courts, the real figure for the share of Islam in French crime is probably much higher than Khosrokhhavar’s estimate.

One of the disadvantages of this high proportion of Muslim inmates is that French prisons have become universities of jihad and incubators of terrorism.

French prison authorities were aware of the problem of radicalization way before the Charlie Hebdo attacks of January 2015. Mohamed Merah, who killed seven people (including three schoolchildren) in Toulouse in 2012 and Mehdi Nemmouche, who killed four people at the Jewish museum in Brussels in 2014, had been radicalized in prison.

The Kouachi brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attack had also rallied to the cause of radical Islam while doing jail time. But when prison governors notified the authorities of the rise in Islamic radicalism, they were not only ignored but accused of Islamophobia.

Official figures indicate that 18,000 Muslim inmates observe Ramadan. There are currently only 182 Muslim prison chaplains, a situation which contributes to the influence of self-styled imams from the Muslim prison constituency.

In that constituency, 1,400 have been identified as radical Islamists of which 300 are linked to terrorism. The extent to which Islamist extremists indulge in and spread their ideology is astonishing.

Calls to prayer are made from prison windows. Inmates who are considered “bad” Muslims — those who watch television, do not rise at dawn to pray or do not wear a jellaba after sunset — are expelled from their cells by their radical co-religionists.

Female Muslim visitors who wear Western-style clothing are insulted and some have resorted to changing into Islamic robes in the parking lot before visits. In 2014, 1,012 cellphones found in prisons were seized, of which 50 percent contained Facebook accounts, some with links to Syria and Yemen.

The most common argument used to entice new recruits is to tell them that they will be absolved of their sins and gain entry to paradise if they commit to waging violent jihad upon release.

In January 2015 Prime Minister Manuel Valls unveiled an $800 million project to combat the spread of radical Islam including the creation of dedicated prison units (U2P or Units for the Prevention of Proselytism) where Islamists would be separated from other prisoners. The project was rolled out in five5 prisons at a cost of $17 million.

One prison governor expressed scepticism at the scheme, saying it would not prevent the recruitment of prisoners to the cause of jihad.

“If we want to separate the radical inmates from the rest of the prison population, we would need to build a French Guantanamo. Is that what we want?” he asked.

A member of the national security intelligence service shares this view. “Our prisons are cauldrons of radicalization. Terrorist inmates are heroes and this facilitates proselytism and recruitment.”

The real question to consider is what restrictions on freedom are acceptable in the interest of national security.

A report published on July 6, 2016 by the inspector general of prisons evaluates the result of this project and the judgement is far from favorable.

Between February and May 2016, three inspectors visited four prisons and interviewed 64 U2P inmates and their handlers. The report concludes that the experimental model is unrealistic given the overpopulation in prisons and presents more disadvantages than advantages.

Moreover, the structures put in place are inappropriate given the scale of the problem and the spectacular increase in people (over 1,000) currently indicted for terrorism. The initial objective of combating proselytism has been supplanted by that of gathering radicalized inmates in single units.

The report echoes the concerns of counter-terrorism magistrates that putting radical Islamists together will facilitate bonding, networking and the intimidation of vulnerable inmates. While radicals in the U2Ps are held in private cells, they are still not completely sealed off from the rest of the inmates and continue to spread their ideology.

The isolation of jihadists in U2Ps is accompanied by deradicalization programs, which consist of lessons in citizenship, lectures and debates on political violence and structured seminars on disengagement from violence for groups of six to eight over a three-month period on a voluntary basis.

Commenting on the report, Guillaume Denoix de Saint-Marc, director of the French Association for Victims of Terrorism, stated that the only way to eliminate prison radicalization is to “make inmates reflect in order to prepare for their release.”

Given the high rate of repeat offending and the crossover from juvenile delinquency to violent crime and ultimately to jihad, such a statement belongs more in the realm of wishful thinking than reality.

Radicalization is also taking place at an alarming rate in prisons in the U.S. Watch a clip from the Clarion film, The Third Jihad: