Editor: Rael Jean Isaac
Editorial Board: Herbert Zweibon, Ruth King

Outpost is distributed free to
Members of Americans For a Safe Israel
Annual membership: $50.

In Memoriam: Paul Schnek

AFSI mourns the loss of longtime member and committed Zionist Paul Schnek. Paul stood outside the Israeli Consulate in NYC, every day from 12-2 PM, to protest the Oslo Accords. He did this for many years, until his legs would no longer allow him to stand for such long periods.


Chaim Weizmann Part 4: War and Statehood” is now available. You can see it via the following link:


Or log in at www.zionism101.org.

“Chaim Weizmann Part 4: War and Statehood” depicts Weizmann’s activities from World War ll until his death as Israel’s first President. In the post-war years, he is sidelined by Zionists disillusioned with British policy, but brought back when his diplomatic skills are needed to help usher through the partition plan at the UN..

If you haven’t already, please watch our completed video courses.


Move it! William Mehlman

“President Trump and the U.S. Embassy in Israel,” blared the headline over a CNBC report by Justina Crabtree. “What’s going on?”

What, indeed, is going on? The relocation of his embassy to Jerusalem, among the 45th president’s “top” priorities, according to election campaign co-manager Kellyanne Conway, has, eleven weeks into his administration, been reduced to an afterthought. Only Conway insists on its continued importance. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer replies to queries about it with the dismissive assertion that “we are only at the very beginning of even discussing this subject,” an apparent invitation to “get lost.” President Trump, on the same subject, informs us, albeit less testily, that “it’s too early” to speculate on an issue he’s been thumping since the primaries or that “we will see what happens.”

Too early? Barely fit for discussion? We’ll see what happens? Granted, the subject was bound to raise Chicken Little consternation from Amman and Riyadh to Paris and Brussels. But having made a promise he repeatedly promised to keep, Mr. Trump owes us more than the back of Sean Spicer’s hand. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, currently overseeing the president’s cyber intelligence operations, seems suddenly overwhelmed by the complexities of hanging a “U.S. Embassy” banner on a building waiting to be employed in western Jerusalem. Benjamin Netanyahu is being accused of caving in to President Trump’s apparent fixation on the “greatest peace deal” that isn’t ever going to be made with a money-grubbing charlatan solely interested in the disappearance of Israel. If health care, tax reform, immigration control, the taming of North Korea and the defanging of a nuclear-bent Iran are to share precious time and attention with the blind alley pursuit of Mahmoud Abbas’ consent to live in peace with a Jewish state, they could all terminate in the dustbin along with Trump’s Congressional majorities and his hopes for a second term.

The best of all reasons for moving that embassy out of Tel Aviv and doing it now are staring the president in the face. If there is to be the new order in the Middle East hinted at by his missile strike against Assad and the massive cave bunker buster directed against ISIS’s attempt to set up shop in Afghanistan, it must begin with the de-isolation of Israel, the region’s prime military and economic power. There’s nowhere else to turn. However impressed Mr. Trump may have been with King Abdullah’s Ivy League English, his majesty and his economic and political train wreck of a government would have been gone years ago were it not for Israel’s support. It is at least partial reliance on that same support that has underlined Sisi’s strategy in Egypt, confronted as he is by a deposed but not defeated Moslem Brotherhood and an increasingly radicalized Sinai Bedouin population. Saudi Arabia remains a corrupt oil oligarchy under a national flag incapable of dealing with a two-bit foe in Yemen. They’ll all carry on for the TV cameras over the embassy move even as they go to ground over their vulnerability to a Shia arc of power–Teheran to Sanaa and most everything in between–that could relegate Sunni primacy to the history books. Israel, its strengths and its links with the U.S., is their lynchpin, not a Palestinian nightmare.


From the Editor Rael Jean Isaac

Democrats Against Ambassador David Friedman

As Daniel Greenfield sums up: “On March 23, 2017 Senators had a simple choice to make. On one side was J Street, an anti-Israel pressure group that had hosted BDS activists and opposed Israel’s right to defend itself. On the other was Ambassador David Friedman, the first pro-Israel nominee in decades.” With only two exceptions, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Democratic Senators (including Chuck Schumer to his everlasting disgrace) voted monolithically for J Street and against Ambassador Friedman. To quote Greenfield: “There could hardly be a better demonstration of the descent into the fever swamps of anti-Israel politics than their decision to stand with an anti-Israel hate group whose Muslim-led student arm is waging war on campuses against the Zionist ‘occupation.’“

Thanks to firm Republican support, Friedman’s appointment was confirmed. But, as Greenfield says, Senate Democrats ought to be made to answer why they stand with George Soros (major funder of J Street who described his role in the Holocaust as “the most exciting time of my life”) and the PLO against Israel.

A Pioneering Israeli Blood Test

In this space we often provide examples of Israeli medical advances, usually culled from Michael Ordman’s blog Amazing Israel. Now Israeli researchers have come up with a blood test that holds out hope of saving the lives of victims of one of the most deadly forms of cancer. Every year roughly 1.8 million new lung cancer patients are diagnosed, 1.59 million of whom will die within a year. The problem is that most cases are discovered by chance and too late to alter the outcome. The new test diagnoses the disease long before it spreads, greatly improving the odds. Within two years it is hoped the test will be marketed and available to those at high risk (e.g. heavy smokers, those with family histories of the disease). Dr. Elon Ganor, one of the developers of the test, told YNet Daily: “We developed the test here in Israel. We dreamed of making a significant contribution to humanity and saving lives, and we are convinced that this test will indeed save hundreds of thousands of people every year worldwide.”

Campus Morality Morphs into Antisemitism

British public affairs analyst Douglas Murray points out the inevitable destination of the new form of “morality in education” that is sweeping the academy, based on the notion that the truth of an opinion is determined by who utters it. On this view, “privileges” exist that preclude some from being worth listening to, while minorities merit special protection from their speech.

Writes Murray: “When you consistently break down a society along racial and sectarian lines…there is bound to be a group that must in the end lose out…Sure enough, the same month that [far left] Angela Davis was applauded [on campus] and [Canadian psychology professor Jordan] Peterson and [Charles] Murray were silenced, some pamphlets turned up on campus at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Like so many leaflets before them, these talked about the scourge of ‘privilege.’ And who did these pamphlets identify as the people with the most privilege? Why, the Jews of course. Or, as the pamphlets put it, ‘Ending white privilege…starts with ending Jewish privilege.’ As with the Occupy Wall Street movement a few years ago, which also ended up with anti-Semitism at its core, who could seriously not have seen that this would be where all this would end? At present, the people who preach tolerance in the United States and Canada are turning out to be the least tolerant. And the people who complain of discrimination turn out to be opening the door to practitioners of the oldest discrimination of all.”

Whither French Jews?


We Did Not Come to Australia to Have Burqas Mohammad Tawhidi

Editor’s note: As a result of his forthright (and immensely courageous) stance, Shiite Imam Mohammed Tawhidi, a graduate of the Islamic seminary in Qom, Iran and Imam of the Islamic Association of South Australia, is now in hiding. Following this lecture a posting was made to his Facebook page “The Islamic ruling for this infidel is beheading” along with a promise of $5000 to anyone who would provide his whereabouts. The inability of outspoken Muslim dissenters to lead normal lives is obviously one reason there are so few of them. Tawhidi’s lecture was posted on the YouTube channel for the Adelaide (Australia) Rotary club on March 21. The excerpts below are courtesy of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

My father made the choice—and he was an Imam himself and still is. He made the choice to come to Australia because it is a non-Muslim country.

Now, if we knew that after 30 years, we were going to have burqas running around, mosques being erected in every corner, and people proposing shari’a law against democracy in this country, we would not have come.

I believe that the entire religion needs a review. I believe that there are certain books that need to be banned from this country. There’s a book regarded as the second book after the Quran. All mainstream Muslims believe in this book–The Bukhari, a very famous book. It’s present in, at least, the majority of Muslim homes. It is everywhere. It is put on the shelf right beside the Quran. Every act of terrorism is taught from that book, yet that book is widely available, sold, and published in Australia.

I don’t understand how Muslims believe–well, radical Muslims are the main issue here–how they believe that if you blow yourself up you go and have lunch with the Prophet Muhammad in Heaven. I didn’t know my prophet was running a restaurant up there. I honestly never knew. And then you have other very attractive statements that they make–that you go and you get 72 virgins–but what kind of a virgin is she that I would have to blow myself up for her?

I also oppose the construction of mosques. We have a big problem. Changing this country is something I am against. You can have one mosque in Adelaide–which is the oldest mosque–and then you can have centers. You can have educational centers. You can rent out university theaters, community centers. There is no need to be building mosques that later on are led by radical Muslim leaders. Some of them don’t find success in radicalizing the youth that come to the mosque to worship God. So what do they do? They drive their cars with their boats, from Western Australia–as you may have heard–all the way to Queensland, because they wanted to join ISIS through Malaysia. And I have always called on ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) to check the bank accounts of Muslim imams and who is funding them. Do these people that fund them have expectations from them to brainwash these children? What is going on with genital mutilation and child brides? What is happening in this country?

Now, I know that there are politicians, in recent times, who have stood up, and they are very against Islam. They want to tell people that Islam is a very dangerous religion. Why do they say that, now? I don’t oppose these politicians because I know exactly what filth is in my religion. I know exactly what is going on, which is why I don’t speak out against them. I’m against generalizing because there are good Muslims, but the main message behind it–I agree with.


Amona and Israel’s Hobbled Sovereignty Moshe Dann

The destruction of fifty-one Jewish homes in Ofra and Amona in February by order of the High Court raises questions about Israel’s claim to be “the nation-state of the Jewish people.” The evictions made no sense, and, although Prime Minister Netanyahu signed an agreement on behalf of the government with the residents of Amona to provide alternative housing in a new community, he has failed to honor his commitment. The families remain in distress, helpless and homeless.

Absurdly, this destruction and others served no one. Jews were traumatized; Arabs can’t use the land for security reasons and because they cannot prove ownership; most Israelis perceived it as a national disgrace; it alienated many and undermined trust in the High Court and the government; and it wasted money and resources. No one benefited!

Although Jews were accused of building on “private Palestinian land,” the question of who owned the land was never heard by an Israeli civilian court. No valid proof of ownership was presented. The destruction, moreover, violated the law in Israel and all other democratic countries: someone who has built in good faith on land which he/she later discovers belongs to someone else is entitled to pay compensation to the legal owner when the value of the building is worth more than the land.

Touted as “the rule of law,” the destruction was intended to demonstrate the power of the High Court regardless of any government decision, or legal issue. The High Court’s decision was meant as a clear political message to the government: it, not the government, would decide the fate of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, “the settlements.” The High Court’s assertion, therefore, challenges the basis of Israeli democracy, the role of its judiciary, and its definition as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

The struggle over that definition arose in 2011, when MK Avi Dichter proposed a Basic Law: “Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.” The purpose of his bill was to codify the nature and values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and to prevent Israel from becoming a binational state. Although supported by the government coalition, including PM Netanyahu and opposition MKs, it did not pass a preliminary reading.

Nation-states, however, are more than national cultures; they are primarily responsible for expressing sovereignty, protecting their citizens, and establishing and defending its borders. In Israel’s case, the status of Judea and Samaria, and especially Area C in which Jewish communities exist, is still in question. Since Israel gave up Areas A and B to the Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip to Hamas, only Area C remains under IDF military occupation. Because Israel has refused to extend its laws to this area, the question persists: are settlements part of Israel, or not?

Although Jews living in settlements are citizens—they pay taxes, serve in the army, and are required to follow Israeli laws—in disputes over land ownership they are subject to the IDF’s judicial administration and have no access to civilian courts. When Arabs or NGOs petition the High Court claiming that Jews have built on privately-owned land, there is no way to examine or challenge the evidence or High Court decisions, since those decisions are final. The system is rigged.


Geert Wilders and the Suicide of Europe Guy Millière

Even if the Dutch politician Geert Wilders had won and if the Party for Freedom (PVV) he established eleven years ago had become the first party in the country, he would not have been able to become the head of the government. The heads of all the other political parties said they would reject any alliance with him; they maintain this position to this day.

For years, the Dutch mainstream media have spread hatred and defamation against Wilders for trying to warn the Dutch people–and Europe–about what their future will be if they continue their current immigration policies; in exchange, last December, a panel of three judges found him guilty of “inciting discrimination.” Newspapers and politicians all over Europe unceasingly describe him as a dangerous man and a rightist firebrand. Sometimes they call him a “fascist.”

What did Geert Wilders ever do to deserve that? None of his remarks ever incriminated any person or group because of their race or ethnicity. To charge him, the Dutch justice system had excessively and abusively to interpret words he used during a rally in which he asked if the Dutch wanted “fewer Moroccans.” None of Wilders’ speeches incites violence against anyone; the violence that surrounds him is directed only at him. He defends human rights and democratic principles and he is a resolute enemy of all forms of anti-Semitism.

His only “crime” is to denounce the danger represented by the Islamization of the Netherlands and the rest of Europe and to claim that Islam represents a mortal threat to freedom. Unfortunately, he has good empirical reasons to say that. Also unfortunately, the Netherlands is a country where criticism of Islam is particularly dangerous: Theo van Gogh made an “Islamically incorrect” film in 2004 and was savagely murdered by an Islamist who said he would kill again if he could. Two years earlier, Pim Fortuyn, who had hoped to stand for election, defined Islam as a “hostile religion;” he was killed by a leftist Islamophile animal-rights activist. Geert Wilders is alive only because he is under around-the-clock police protection graciously provided by the Dutch government.

More broadly, the Netherlands is a country where the Muslim community shows few signs of integration. There are now forty no-go zones in the country; riots easily erupt, recently in Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Nijmegen. People recently from other countries repeatedly attack Dutch-born citizens. Some are so sure of their impunity that they publish online videos of their crimes. Throughout the country, an ethnic cleansing that Europeans are too scared to name is taking place in the suburbs, and non-Muslim residents often say they feel harassed.

Non-Muslim women are encouraged by local authorities to dress “modestly.” As in Islam dogs are haram (impure), dog owners are asked to keep their pets indoors. In 2014, 2015 and 2016, Islamists demonstrated and shouted slogans in support of Hamas and the Islamic State.

Daily life has become particularly difficult for the 40,000 Jews still living in the country; districts long inhabited by members of the Jewish community have become almost entirely Muslim. Authorities recommend that Jews avoid any “visible sign” of Jewishness to avoid creating “unrest.” Muslim delinquency is high; the percentage of Muslims sent to jail for various crimes is notably higher than the percentage of Muslims in the population. Six percent of the country’s population is Muslim; about 20% of all inmates are Muslim. None of this is secret.


Latrun Bill Slott

Topography is history. As long as there has been a Jerusalem, there has been an ascent to Jerusalem, and that ascent begins at Latrun. Whoever holds that hill holds the road to Jerusalem. Today Latrun is a battlefield museum and memorial. The site contains an out-door display of tanks dating from World War I through to the present. It is also home to the Wall of Memory, listing the names of soldiers of the tank corps (but not their rank) who died in Israel’s wars. Looming above it all is the bullet-pocked British fortress that itself sits atop the ruins of fortresses of every empire that has sought to hold this strategic spot. As a tour guide, I often bring visitors to Latrun to take in the beautiful views from the top of the fortress, let the kids climb on the tanks for photo ops, and pay respects to the fallen soldiers.

But last week I was there as a father, watching the ceremony in which my daughter marked the completion of her training as a non-commissioned officer. My slight, sweet, cheerful youngest, who has never raised her voice in anger to anyone, is going to be drilling new recruits in the Israeli Army.

It was a raucous affair, with thousands in attendance, a bizarre combination of sporting event, award ceremony and mass picnic. Many of the families brought specially made t-shirts, banners, and hats celebrating their son or daughter. I was not so well prepared, and while I shared in the general sense of merriment, and brought a basket of goodies and a van full of friends and family, I could not escape the gravity of the moment. The large outdoor stage on which the 350 newly-trained officers were awarded their stripes has as its backdrop the massive fortress. The British had handed over the fortress to the Arab Legion in May of 1948 and the Israeli Army tried and failed five times to conquer it. Among the soldiers who were sent

Ceremony at Latrun

into those battles were survivors of the holocaust, newly minted Israelis straight off the boat from the D.P. camps of Europe. They spoke a Babel of languages, and could not always communicate with each other. They knew very little Hebrew and often could not understand their officers during the fighting. In this catastrophe, men who had miraculously survived Auschwitz died on the field of battle in the newly independent Jewish state. This too is part of the story of the birth of Israel.

While I take pride in my daughter’s accomplishments as a soldier, I wish more than anything that she did not have to do this at all. It would give me great joy if she had the luxury of studying literature at some liberal arts college instead of running around with an M16. But she has grown up in a time and a place where that is not an option. Not yet and not here. There is much work to be done in this country. Peace, social justice, education, dialogue with our neighbors, dialogue with each other, becoming a “light unto the nations.” Someday my daughter will be a soldier in these battles as well. But last week she stood in the shadow of the fortress where others lost their lives so that she could have a home, and swore allegiance to the Israeli Army. I am not a big fan of military pageantry or nationalistic symbols, but at that moment, I choked back tears. Many of the soldiers memorialized at Latrun were as small and as sweet as my daughter, and some were even younger. She is, in her own way, carrying on their mission, and I am certain that she will continue to do so long after she has ceased to wear a uniform. As the event drew to a close, I stood and sang the national anthem, “Hatikva” (the hope) as loud as anyone there. I was not embarrassed. My hopes for my daughter and my hopes for this country were one and the same.


The Weapon Wizards: How Israel Became a High-Tech Military Superpower by Yaakov Katz & Amir Bohbot Reviewed by David Isaac

In 1948, as Israel was heading into its first war, an IDF general sent a letter to David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s new prime minister, politely declining his offer to become chief of staff because he had learned the Jewish State only had six million bullets. “We will need 1 million bullets a day in a war and I am not willing to be chief of staff for just six days,” he wrote.

The Weapon Wizards, an engaging look at Israel’s weapons industry, is replete with such anecdotes. (Another that’s hard to resist is how Jewish forces in Jerusalem held off Arab rioters with one gun and 11 bullets. Afterward, the commander criticized the “gratuitous use of ammo.”) Such stories drive home how little Israel had militarily in its early years. Israel’s humble beginnings make it even more remarkable that it has become a military power. The goal of the authors, Israeli journalists Yaakov Katz and Amir Bohbot, is to explain how that transformation came about. As they write, 60 years ago Israel’s biggest exports were oranges and false teeth. Today, weapons make up 10 percent of Israel’s exports.

Like Start-Up Nation by Dan Senor and Saul Singer, Katz and Bohbot identify national characteristics that have led to a “culture of innovation.” Leading the list is a creativity born of necessity. “With barely any resources beyond the human capital that had immigrated to the new state, Israelis had to make the most of the little they had,” the authors write. Israel has even created a subunit of autistic soldiers to analyze satellite pictures.

The Weapon Wizards is at its best showing these characteristics in action, from amusing episodes to in-depth stories focusing on the development of certain weapons systems. For instance, when illustrating the advantages of the IDF’s flexible hierarchy, the authors describe a visit by the U.S. Air Force’s F-16 program director. During a tour of IDF squadrons, one of the participants started lecturing his commander on everything that was wrong with the plane. The U.S. representative, a lieutenant general, asked the person to identify himself. He was shocked to learn the critic was a lowly mechanic. In America, the authors write, it’s unheard of to talk out of turn and argue with your commander, especially in front of a foreign officer. “In Israel, though, no one thinks in those terms. What the mechanic was doing was exactly what he had been trained to do and what he thought was expected of him—to speak his mind,” the authors write.

In a similar vein, Israel nurtures its best and brightest. A fascinating example of this characteristic is a program called Talpiot. Created in 1979, it pulls together some of Israel’s most promising young people, who sign on for nine years of service in return for degrees in fields like physics, math, and computer science. Thousands apply each year; only 30 are accepted. Talpiot graduates, called Talpions, are seeded throughout the army where they have an impact far beyond their numbers. In 40 years, the program has produced roughly 1,000 graduates, but a single one can revolutionize a unit, the authors say. Although the program met resistance early on, within a few years generals were demanding to know: “Where is my Talpion?” The prime minister was forced to hold a special meeting to resolve the issue.

Although Katz and Bohbot don’t come right out and say it, it’s evident that for all the encouragement of innovation, there remains resistance within the military one would expect from any large establishment. Talpiot had to overcome naysayers before it was embraced, and so did many of the programs the authors discuss, from satellites to the Iron Dome. This suggests the IDF fosters innovation only after a fight. What appears to distinguish the IDF from other militaries is that innovative individuals don’t quit. They also have an admirably dismissive attitude toward army regulations. The premier example is Brigadier General Danny Gold, who developed the Iron Dome.


What’s Trump Cooking Up With the Palestinians? David Hornik

From Israel, the Trump administration’s moves in the Middle East look encouraging so far.

There’s been the tough response to Bashar Assad’s sarin-gas atrocity; the highlighting of Iran as regional mischief-maker; the strengthening of tacit Israeli strategic allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt; and of course, a reset with Israel itself after eight years of the Obama administration’s hectoring and accusations.

Now, however, President Trump is preparing for another Middle East move that is raising questions and doubts in Israel. On May 3, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas will be hosted by Trump at the White House.

Questioned about the meeting, White House press secretary Sean Spicer defined the Trump administration’s ultimate goal:

[A] conflict-ending settlement between the Palestinians and Israel.

Israel, for its part, began seeking an end to the conflict in 1993 with the launching of the Oslo peace process. A quarter-century of terror, rockets, and relentless Palestinian delegitimization of Israel later, a survey published late last month found fewer Israelis than ever—36%, down from 60% in 2005–felt Israel could risk withdrawing from the West Bank.

Shortly thereafter, a review of Palestinian attitudes found even less reason for optimism about a “conflict-ending settlement.” Dan Polisar of Jerusalem’s Shalem College examined no less than 400 surveys of Palestinian opinion, and found that a majority of Palestinians reject the much-vaunted “two-state solution.”

The majority instead favors a “one-state solution”: Israel’s obliteration.


The April of My Discontent Ruth King

The New York Times has a new op-ed contributor named Marwan Barghouti. In a column entitled “Why We Are on Hunger Strike in Israel’s Prisons”–-a screed to make Thomas Friedman proud– he explained:

“Palestinian prisoners and detainees have suffered from torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, and medical negligence. Some have been killed while in detention. According to the latest count from the Palestinian Prisoners Club, about 200 Palestinian prisoners have died since 1967 because of such actions. Palestinian prisoners and their families also remain a primary target of Israel’s policy of imposing collective punishments.”

The Times described Barghouti as a “Palestinian leader and parliamentarian.”

Oops! The Times somehow forgot to mention that Marwan Barghouti is a terrorist serial killer whose savagery earned him five life sentences. It’s like describing Jeffrey Dahmer, the cannibal serial killer, as a “culinary innovator.”

Confronting a storm of outrage from readers, on April 17, the Times clarified: “This article explained the writer’s prison sentence but neglected to provide sufficient context by stating the offenses of which he was convicted. They were five counts of murder and membership in a terrorist organization. Mr. Barghouti declined to offer a defense at his trial and refused to recognize the Israeli court’s jurisdiction and legitimacy.”

Some good came from all this. On April 20, the Mayfair Hotel in London canceled a screening of Marwan: A film about the life and struggle of Marwan Barghouti, which the Palestinian Mission in the UK has been promoting and when the Mission transferred the showing to the Copthorne Tara Hotel, it canceled as well.

The New York Times must like the name Barghouti. Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the BDS movement and author of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights is also a favored contributor. In a January 2014 op-ed he explained “Why Israel Fears the Boycott” listing the usual litany of lies and accusations. In May 2015 he wrote an op-ed “Israeli Extremism Will Encourage Global Boycott” quoting a poll by J Street to bolster his bias. On March 16th, 2017 in a letter to the editor, he compares BDS to the civil rights movement, quotes a questionable Brookings Institute poll on American support for sanctions against Israel, and spells out the agenda of BDS:

“Since its inception in 2005 by the Palestinian grass-roots civil society coalition, B.D.S. has consistently called for ending Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; granting full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel, who are discriminated against by dozens of laws; and recognizing the United Nations-stipulated right of Palestinian refugees to return to lands from which they were forcibly displaced during Israel’s establishment in 1948.” He could have said it in one sentence: BDS calls for the end of Israel….period! And has anyone told him that Gaza is not “occupied” since 2005?

In other news from The Times Bret Stephens, an articulate, cultured journalist and strong supporter of Israel (despite periodic lapses into the two-state delusion), has left The Wall Street Journal for The New York Times, where he will be the token pro-Israel writer in that swamp of Israel-bashing “calumnists.” Too bad.

Other mainstream papers contribute to anti-Israel bias by ignoring relevant stories.

To paraphrase George Berkeley about a tree falling in the woods, if the media doesn’t report it, did it happen?

In France, on April 3, an Orthodox Jewish woman, Sarah Halimi, a doctor aged 66, was thrown out of a window to her death by an African neighbor who shouted “Allahu akbar!” The mainstream media ignored it.


Editor: Rael Jean Isaac
Editorial Board: Herbert Zweibon, Ruth King

Outpost is distributed free to
Members of Americans For a Safe Israel
Annual membership: $50.

Americans For a Safe Israel
1751 Second Ave. (at 91st St.)
New York, NY 10128
tel (212) 828-2424 / fax (212) 828-1717
E-mail: afsi @rcn.com web site: http://www.afsi.org

April 2017
« Mar   May »