Human Rights NGOs–The World’s Most Lethal Evil-Doers by Rael Jean Isaac

The world’s most lethal evil-doers are the NGOs that fly under a false flag, claiming to be champions of human rights. Their potency comes from the fact that unlike other of the world’s worst actors—think Kim Jung Un—they are not feared and despised but admired and treated as moral arbiters. A billion dollar a year industry, these NGOs reinforce their moral with financial muscle. Gerald Steinberg, founder and director of NGO Monitor, has been alone in following these outfits for the last fifteen years. He observes that human rights NGOs show “that soft power can sometimes be more dangerous than hard power.”

And while Israel is their most obvious target, they have bigger game in their sights—the transformation of Western societies and culture through mass immigration.

Human rights NGOs bear a major responsibility for the demonizing of Israel in the West. In Catch the Jew Tuvia Tenenbom, masquerading as Tobi the German, focuses on the hundreds of so-called human rights NGOs that infest Israel and the Palestinian-controlled territories in search of Israeli misdeeds—and fabricate them (sometimes stage them) as they come up short. Many of these NGOs are basically front groups for terrorists and assorted destroy-Israel groups. In 1917 Steinberg finally was able to persuade the Danish government to stop funding the Human Rights International Humanitarian Law Secretariat, an NGO framework established in 2013 at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah with an annual budget of millions of euros paid for by the governments of Sweden, Holland, Denmark and Switzerland. In an interview with journalist Ruthie Blum, Steinberg says that his research has shown that of the 24 core NGOs funded by the Secretariat, six had ties to the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (on the EU’s official list of terrorist organizations) and 15 were involved in world-wide campaigns to destroy Israel by economic means.


Foolish and Dangerous Jews by Eileen F. Toplansky

In Eastern European folklore, the city of Chelm functions as an imaginary city of fools, similar to that of the Greek Abdera, the English Gotham, and the German Schilda. In fact, the Chelm tales describe outlandish naiveté and futility. Ruth von Bermuth argues that “Chelm…functioned for more than three centuries as an ironic model of Jewish society, both utopia and dystopia, an imaginary place onto which changing questions about Jewish identity, community, and history repeatedly have been projected.”

When reading these stories, one is amazed at the characters who seem so unaware of their folly. The tales showcase how common sense is often absent as so-called wise men cite unusual solutions that never work. They are stubbornly foolish and show contempt for logical problem-solving.

It is important to note that these stories reveal a backdrop of the centuries-old pariah status of Jews in a majority of countries. They could not endure if they lacked two essential survival mechanisms. The first is the necessity of always looking over one’s shoulder anticipating the Cossack, the inquisitor, the Nazi, or any of the diabolical characters whose aim was to demean or destroy the Jews. The second factor was black humor, which sustained Jews through the pogroms, the concentration camps, and the Gulag. These were necessary because one of the [d]efining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical and modern anti-Semitism. Jews could never become too comfortable.

Despite the fact that safety is a Jewish religious concern, there are currently far too many liberal rabbis in America who seem content to ignore the avowed enemies of the Jewish people. Consequently, on July 25, 2017, in what appeared to be an unprecedented event in American Jewish history, a group that came into existence as a front for a terrorist organization that murders Jews was invited to solicit donations at a synagogue.

Rabbi Howard Jaffe of Temple Isaiah in Lexington, Mass., hosted three Muslim leaders, whom he presented to his congregation as friends of the Jewish community. It was billed as an interfaith bridge-building affair. In actuality, it was “a political rally where Islamist extremists pretending to be moderates sought to enlist Jews in their campaign to undermine U.S. government counter-terrorism efforts, while raising funds for a Hamas-connected group–all in the name of ‘social justice’ and interfaith harmony.

The Muslim guests were Nadeem Mazen, New England director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Stephanie Marzouk, founder of the Muslim Justice League (MJL) and Samer Naseredden, director of youth programming at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center (ISBCC), which is New England’s largest mosque.

This occurred despite the fact that CAIR promotes a radical Islamic vision, as … its co-founder Omar Ahmad asserted that “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran … should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” In a similar spirit, co-founder Ibrahim Hooper told a reporter in 1993: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.” In 2003 Hooper stated that ‘if Muslims ever become a majority in the United States, they will likely seek to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law, which they deem superior to man-made law.’ In the late 1980s, Ihsan Bagby, who would later become a CAIR [b]oard member, stated that Muslims “can never be full citizens of this country,” referring to the United States, “because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.”


Palestinians: No Difference Between Fatah and Hamas by Bassam Tawil

Is there any difference between the “moderate” Fatah faction headed by Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas?

In recent weeks, Fatah, which is often described by Westerners as the “moderate” and “pragmatic” Palestinian faction, has escalated its rhetorical attacks against Israel and the US to a point where one can no longer distinguish between its rhetoric and that of Hamas.

Like Hamas, Abbas’s Fatah regularly glorifies terrorists and encourages Palestinians to take them as role models. This is the very Fatah that is supposed to be Israel’s peace partner and whose leader, Abbas, claims that he is still committed to the “two-state solution.”

The latest example of Fatah’s glorification of terrorists came last week, when the Israel Defense Forces killed Ahmed Ismail Jarrar, of Jenin, in the northern West Bank. Jarrar belonged to a terror cell whose members murdered Rabbi Raziel Shevach two weeks ago.

Although Jarrar is believed to be a member of Hamas, Fatah was quick to publish posters depicting him as one of its “martyrs.” In one of the posters, Fatah described the slain terrorist as a “hero” and “martyr of Jerusalem.” Fatah’s student faction at Al-Quds University also confirmed that Jarrar was one of its members. In a statement published hours after the terrorist was killed, the Fatah Shabiba [Youth] Movement at Al-Quds University boasted that he was “one of our prominent leaders and a member of our administrative body.”

Palestinian activists in Jenin claimed that Jarrar had served as an officer with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces in the West Bank. However, a Palestinian security official denied the claim. The denial is seen as an attempt by the Palestinian Authority to distance itself from the involvement of one of its members in terrorism. The Palestinian Authority has good reason to be worried: its security forces are funded and trained by American and European experts.


Israel at the United Nations by Ruth King

The United Nations conceived with such hope, has lost its way to bias, ignorance and endless attacks on Israel. The irony here is that the finest speeches delivered there have been by Israel’s defenders.

In 1949, Abba Eban urged the United Nations, still housed in Lake Success, to accept Israel’s membership. His speech lasted more than two hours. He chided the U.N. for holding up Israel’s application with the lame excuse that the “refugee and resettlement” issue had to be investigated. He noted many nations which expelled and dislocated hundreds of thousands were swiftly accepted. He scolded Jerusalem’s Arab authorities for flouting the UN’s resolution declaring Jerusalem an “international city” with access to people of all faiths. He described the desecration of shrines, churches and synagogues. And he addressed the problem of refugees with data and possibilities for resettlement in other Arab nations.

Abba Eban succeeded: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 was adopted on May 11, 1949 admitting the State of Israel to membership in the United Nations. It was passed following the approval of UN Security Council Resolution 69 on March 4.

Abba Eban served as Israel’s representative to the U.N. from 1948 until 1959 and as Israel’s Ambassador to the United States. He became Israel’s most effective speaker in the Diaspora. With a courtly manner and perfect diction, rarely checking notes, he defended his nation with zeal and rhetorical genius. The response of the Arab states was laughable. As soon as Eban stood, the Arab representatives walked out.

When he returned to Israel in 1959 he joined the Labor party. In June 1967 Eban, then Foreign Minister, returned to the United Nations to address the Security Council following the Six Day War.

Here are excerpts from his magnificent speech which should be read in full by anyone who falsely uses the word “occupation.”




Editor: Rael Jean Isaac

Editorial Board: Ruth King, Rita Kramer

Outpost is distributed free to Members of Americans for a Safe Israel Annual membership: $100.

Americans for a Safe Israel

1751 Second Ave. (at 91st Street)

New York, NY 10128

Tel (212) 828-2424 / fax (212) 828-1717


Trump and Haley Deliver the Goods William Mehlman

In the Orwellian fog rapidly subsuming Western democratic society, what divides the keffiya-clad attacker of a Jewish restaurant in Amsterdam mere hours after Donald Trump’s formal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the 128-9 vote in the UN General Assembly to render that recognition void, is more a matter of style than substance. Both were acts of nullification, the “No!” screamed at objective truth in the hope it can be made to go away.

The President of the United States is being both hailed and vilified for arguably the most courageous act by an American head of state since Harry Truman welcomed Israel into the family of nations. All Donald Trump was doing, in fact, was acknowledging a reality that has stood before the eyes of the world for seven decades. Jerusalem has been the site of Israel’s parliament, its Supreme Court and all but one of its ministries through all of that period. The organs that define its sovereignty have been implanted in Jerusalem’s soil for 3,500 years.

President Trump’s embrace of Jerusalem’s status, moreover, is informed by American law, a 1995 bill passed unanimously by the Senate mandating the transfer of the U.S. embassy to the city from its present domicile in Tel-Aviv. The then-Clinton Administration, pressured by the State Department, strove mightily to dilute the bill’s impact. The State Department ultimately got its way with a codicil giving present and future occupants of the White House continuous six month waivers against implementation if they deemed that doing so would constitute an impediment to the nation’s diplomatic and strategic interests.

Refusing in October to put his signature to yet another six-month waiver, Trump signaled that he was freeing the 22-year old embassy bill of its inherent self-nullification and setting the stage for a new chapter in U.S.-Israel relations. “The idea of Israel being the only country that can’t choose its own capital is ridiculous” he said.

In confronting the “International Community” and its 2017 bi-cameral riff on Orwell’s “Ministry of Truth,” the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the president has at his side former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, the boldest, most combative American ambassador the glass house on Second Avenue has seen since the glory days of Jeane Kirkpatrick and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. It is more than three decades since American interests, from the eastern Mediterranean to the northern Pacific, have been so clearly articulated and vigorously pursued. To her further credit, Haley has invested nearly as much passion in defending Israel against the never-ending hostility of its most predatory UN neighbors. Her value to Israeli ambassador Danny Danon has been immeasurable.


From the Editor Rael Jean Isaac

Europe Votes on Jerusalem

“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” Zechariah 12:9

It’s enough to convince you that Europe deserves to be Islamized and that what Douglas Murray calls the strange suicide of Europe is not so strange after all—it’s part and parcel of jettisoning its religious and cultural heritage. The UN General Assembly has voted 138-9 (with 35 abstentions and 21 no-shows) to condemn President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The nine who voted against the resolution, apart from the U.S. and Israel, were Guatemala and Honduras and the tiny Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Togo and Nauru. Almost all EU member states voted for the resolution (Hungary and Czechoslovakia abstained).

The wonderful Nikki Paley scheduled a party on Jan. 3 for those who did not vote for what Prime Minister Netanyahu calls the “ridiculous” resolution; since it would not have been much of a party with only the nine holdouts, she has included in the guest list the 35 abstainers and 21 who stayed away. They may have been cowardly but were indicating they would have preferred to vote “no.”

Guatemala Follows America’s Lead

The BBC, along with most of the mainstream media, has been gleefully rubbing in the isolation of the U.S. in the face of the overwhelming international “consensus.” But lo and behold, the New York Post reports that ten countries, including several in Europe, are talking to Israel about moving their embassies to Jerusalem. And once they break ground, there can be little doubt that many more will line up behind them.

It’s fitting that Guatemala is the first to announce openly its plan to move its embassy to Jerusalem. Guatemala took a leading role at the time of the UN vote for partition in 1947. Jorge Garcia Granados, Guatemala’s ambassador to the UN, was a member of the UN Special Committee for Palestine (UNSCOP) where he took a strong stance for creating a Jewish state. Granados became Guatemala’s first ambassador to Israel where several city streets are named after him.

Austria’s Rightwing Government

While the migrant invasion of Europe has led to significant gains by hitherto marginal right wing parties in the EU, Austria is the first Western European country to go all the way, installing a right wing, anti-Muslim mass immigration governing coalition composed of the Austrian People’s Party and the Austrian Freedom Party. The latter has Nazi roots and many Jews are up in arms, the World Jewish Congress calling for Jewish groups to eschew contact with the new government.

But given the abysmal lockstep anti-Israel positions taken by current EU governments (and their failure to stem the flow of Muslims drenched in anti-Semitism) perhaps an attitude of wait-and-see would be more appropriate. The Gatestone Institute’s Soeren Kern points out that the Freedom Party’s current leader Heinz-Christian Strache insists that anti-Semitism has no place in his party and has pledged “to ensure that boycotts [against Israeli products] get taken off the agenda.” During an April 2016 visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem Strache said: “We have a lot in common [with Israel]. I always say, if one defines the Judeo-Christian West, then Israel represents a kind of border. If Israel fails, Europe fails. And if Europe fails, Israel fails.”

Talk is cheap but having taken over on December 18, Austria’s new government will have a chance to prove itself. How will it vote on the next rash of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN? How will it vote in EU councils? The tests will quickly pile up. It’s already flunked the first one, voting on Dec. 21 with the dhimmi European herd in the UN General Assembly to condemn the U.S. moving its embassy to Jerusalem.


Canada: Obsessed with “Islamophobia” by Judith Bergman

In September, the Canadian parliament began its study on how to combat “Islamophobia.” A parliamentary committee, the M-103 committee, was established for that very purpose. Although motion M-103 was not binding, Samer Majzoub, a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate of the Canadian Muslim Forum, tellingly advertised: “Now that Islamophobia has been condemned, this is not the end, but rather the beginning… so that condemnation is followed by comprehensive policies.”

Majzoub’s statement presumably meant that the next steps would be to make M-103 binding. Part of the problem, however, with any study of “Islamophobia”, as with any motions about it, is that it is never clearly defined.

Now fresh statistics released at the end of November 2017, showed that in Canada, hate crimes against Muslims actually fell in 2016, but those against Jews increased:

Hate crimes against Muslims:

2015, there were 159

2016, there were 139

Hate crimes against Jews:

2015, there were 178

2016, there were 221

In Canada, with a population of 36 million people, approximately 330,000 are Jews and slightly more than 1,000,000 are Muslims.

Should not parliament, then—if anything—instead be studying how to combat Jew-hatred? Statistics, of course, do not mention who is behind the rise in hate crimes against Jews. Moreover, the Canadian media is not investigating what might be causing it, or whether the regular preaching of Jew-hatred in many mosques might have something to do with it. Canadian politicians? They are too busy studying “Islamophobia”.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently labelled a question about putting returning ISIS jihadists in jail from Opposition Leader Andrew Scheer part of a pattern of “Islamophobia”. (How can that be, if ISIS supposedly has “nothing to do with Islam”?)


Racing Against History: The 1940 Campaign for a Jewish Army to Fight Hitler by Rick Richman Reviewed by David Isaac

Why wasn’t there a Jewish army in World War II to fight the Nazis? No group had more motivation to do so. Well, it’s not that they didn’t want one. Rick Richman’s Racing Against History skillfully recounts the efforts by three major Zionist leaders to raise a Jewish army in America to fight Hitler. Chaim Weizmann, Vladimir Jabotinsky, and David Ben-Gurion, representing the center, right, and left of the political spectrum, came to the United States on separate missions with the same goal in 1940.

But why go to the United States, which was not then in the war? It was England, which had declared war on Nazi Germany after Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, that needed manpower. And it was England that had experience in creating a Jewish Legion in World War I. But then, England was on the cusp of creating the Jewish National Home. Now it was shutting it down. England had slammed the gates of Palestine to the desperate Jews of Europe in 1939. Intent on appeasing Middle Eastern Arabs, Britain’s Foreign and Colonial Office were of no mind to alienate them by creating a Jewish army—or to owe the Jews a political debt in a postwar world.

The goal of the Zionist leaders was precisely to create such a debt. In World War I, Jabotinsky, who spearheaded the drive for the Legion, was nearly alone in seeing that if the cause of the Jewish State were to be accepted as a specific war aim and if the Jews wanted a seat at the postwar table, it was important that they fight alongside the Allies under a Jewish flag. When World War II began, all the major Zionist leaders understood this. And they viewed their mission in America as a way to exert pressure on England to allow such an army and to encourage American Jews to demand to join it.

Richman describes the difficult situation the Zionist leaders encountered in the United States. America was in an isolationist mood, anti-Semitism was vocal and popular among certain segments of the public, and American Jews were fearful lest they be accused of leading America into war for their own Jewish interests. The result was that Jews were afraid to speak up. In Hollywood, Jewish-run studios kept quiet about Nazism. Warner Bros.’ Harry Warner was the only one to talk publicly about it, Richman says. As late as September 1941 (only a few months before Pearl Harbor changed everything) he was called before a Senate committee to testify on “war propaganda disseminated by the motion picture industry” and forced to defend the 1939 film Confessions of a Nazi Spy. As Richman notes, the committee was effective in sending the message that even movie executives weren’t immune from the consequences of taking a stand against Nazism.


On Resolution 2334 by Nikki Haley

Editor’s note: Nikki Haley’s response to the UN’s lopsided vote condemning the U.S. for announcing it planned to move its embassy to Jerusalem has received most of the coverage, but her rebuke of Obama’s shameful “abstention” on Resolution 2334—his farewell shaft against Israel—is equally noteworthy.

This week marks the one-year anniversary of the passage of Resolution 2334. On that day, in this Council, in December 2016, the United States elected to abstain, allowing the measure to pass. Now it’s one year and a new administration later. Given the chance to vote again on Resolution 2334, I can say with complete confidence that the United States would vote “no.” We would exercise our veto power. The reasons why are very relevant to the cause of peace in the Middle East.

On the surface, Resolution 2334 described Israeli settlements as impediments to peace. Reasonable people can disagree about that, and in fact, over the years the United States has expressed criticism of Israeli settlement policies many times.

But in truth, it was Resolution 2334 itself that was an impediment to peace. This Security Council put the negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinians further out of reach by injecting itself, yet again, in between the two parties to the conflict. By misplacing the blame for the failure of peace efforts squarely on the Israeli settlements, the resolution gave a pass to Palestinian leaders who for many years rejected one peace proposal after another. It also gave them encouragement to avoid negotiations in the future. It refused to acknowledge the legacy of failed negotiations unrelated to settlements. And the Council passed judgment on issues that must be decided in direct negotiations between the parties.

If the United Nations’ history in the peace efforts proves anything, it is that talking in New York cannot take the place of face-to-face negotiations between the regional parties. It only sets back the cause of peace, not advance it.

As if to make this very point, Resolution 2334 demanded a halt to all Israeli settlement activity in East Jerusalem – even in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City. This is something that no responsible person or country would ever expect Israel would do. And in this way, Resolution 2334 did what President Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel did not do: It prejudged issues that should be left in final status negotiations.

Given the chance today, the United States would veto Resolution 2334 for another reason. It gave new life to an ugly creation of the Human Rights Council: the database of companies operating in Jewish communities. This is an effort to create a blacklist, plain and simple. It is yet another obstacle to a negotiated peace. It is a stain on America’s conscience that we gave the so-called BDS movement momentum by allowing the passage of Resolution 2334.

Page 2 of 77«12345»102030...Last »


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

March 2018
« Jan