Brandeis Redux? by Peter Metzger

In October 2008 Outpost published an article by H. Peter Metzger, himself a Brandeis graduate, entitled “Brandeis: School for Terrorists?” Clearly no one was paying attention, for today many profess to be shocked, shocked that Brandeis should have canceled its invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak and be presented with an honorary degree, on the excuse that they had discovered her opinions were inconsistent with Brandeis “core values.” Metzger’s 2008 article, reprinted below, throws light on those “core values.”

Brandeis: School For Terrorists?
H. Peter Metzger

Snatching a loaded M4 carbine, the diminutive mother of three fired on her FBI questioners, and was swiftly injured by return fire. She is now in federal court awaiting charges of attempted murder. The FBI had placed her near the top of its most wanted list of fugitive terror subjects. A CIA spokesman said, “I don’t think we’ve captured anybody more important and well-connected as she since 2003.”
Her name is Aafia Siddiqui, and she is charged with being an important Al-Qaeda ”fixer,” a person who coordinates terror plots between various other terrorists within this very secret organization. In 2004, the FBI called her an “Al-Qaeda operative and facilitator who posed a clear and present danger to America.” When arrested in August just before the shoot-out, she was carrying plans to bomb various U.S. landmarks and to kill former Presidents Carter, Bush and Clinton.

But nowhere in the extensive news coverage of this event was her tie to Brandeis University explored, nor was it mentioned that she was only the latest in a long series of terrorists coming out of that university. Now, I don’t mean kids protesting the Vietnam War, which was common in the 1970’s. I mean real terrorists.
One might ask “So what’s new?” As a long ago graduate of that place, I remember when a terrorist coming out of a Brandeis education was not an extraordinary event. In fact, Brandeis, a university of less than 5,000 students, has provided a sanctuary for more extreme radicals than any other university in America.

From its earliest days, Brandeis attracted not only leftist liberals, but many far-left radicals. Most of the people I cite below were arrested and spent time in prison for violent crimes done in the name of far-left extremist politics.

It all began around 1970, when Brandeis saw three of its women students posted to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List (Angela Davis, Susan Saxe and Katherine Power), no small feat since only seven women were put on that FBI list in its entire history

Those Brandeis girls were famous leftist revolutionary America-haters, but they were only the “stars” of the then Hate-America movement. There were many other lesser lights. For example, another Brandeis student was Jennifer Casolo, a revolutionary who was found to have an arsenal of weapons and explosives buried in her backyard–“tons” of the stuff according to White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitz-water. Then there were other minor players like Brandeis students Laura Whitehorn and Naomi Jaffe. Curiously, all these violence-prone misfits were women.

So what has Brandeis been hosting up there anyway? Well, it would appear that Brandeis has been providing a friendly intellectual climate for kids wanting to become violent domestic revolutionaries, all under the guise of elevating “social consciousness.” For example, several of the so-called Brandeis terrorists trace their intellectual development back to classes taught there by Marxist professors like Herbert Marcuse and other America haters.

Full Story »

David Isaac : A Review of “Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel’s Soul” by Daniel Gordis

Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel’s Soul is a pleasure to read. The author, Daniel Gordis, a fellow at Jerusalem’s Shalem College, has a gift for clearly summarizing complex events, including key incidents about which much nonsense has been written.

Begin was born in the Polish town of Brisk in 1913. His most important early influence was his father Ze’ev Dov Begin, a deeply religious man who helped organize Jewish self-defense.
Fatefully, Ze’ev Dov switched Menachem, then age 13, out of what he considered the overly socialist Hashomer Hatzair youth group and into Betar, a competing Zionist youth organization and the brainchild of Vladimir “Ze’ev” Jabotinsky. Gordis notes, correctly, that, “There is no understanding Begin without understanding Jabotinsky.”
Jabotinsky butted heads with the other Zionist leaders, disagreeing with their accommodating policies toward the British, who were backing away from their commitment to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine.
When Begin heard Jabotinsky speak for the first time, he was overwhelmed: “You sit there, down below, and begin to feel in every fiber of your body that you are being lifted up, borne aloft, up, up … Have you been won over? No, more than that. You have been consecrated to the idea, forever.” It was thanks to Begin’s own oratorical skills that he quickly rose in the ranks of Betar.

During WWII, Begin made his way to Palestine and in January 1944 became head of the underground Irgun, or Etzel, as it was also called. Gordis neatly sums up the difference in philosophy of the Etzel and the competing Haganah by the way they opened their radio addresses. For the Haganah, it was: “Thou shall not kill.” For Etzel: “Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”

It was during this period that Begin earned the right to be considered a founding father of Israel. For without the Etzel, it is unlikely the state would have come into being. It is also here that Gordis shines, offering a fair account of events badly misrepresented at the time and, indeed, still widely misconstrued. These include the King David Hotel bombing, the Altalena affair, and Deir Yassin.

Take the King David Hotel Bombing. Etzel warnings phoned into the hotel were ignored and 92 died. It was a joint operation approved by the Haganah during a period of cooperation between the underground groups. Yet David Ben-Gurion denied any involvement. “Begin assumed full responsibility, an astonishing display of nobility given Ben-Gurion’s obvious mendacity,” Gordis writes.
Deir Yassin followed the same pattern. Etzel fighters took this Arab village as part of an operation approved by Ben-Gurion. The plan went awry as a truck with loudspeakers meant to warn the Arabs became stuck in a tank trap. The Jews came under fire. Five died and 31 were wounded. The number of Arabs killed is contested, but estimates today put it at 107. “The episode was quickly dubbed the ‘Deir Yassin massacre,’ the name that it retains in most accounts to this day,” Gordis observes. Ben-Gurion again denied involvement, and used the opportunity to vilify Begin and Etzel.

Full Story »

Looking For Love In All the Wrong Places: Ruth King

I know that “profiling” is considered taboo in politically correct circles. However, it is often an accurate way of predicting behavior–both good and bad. So here is my profile of reliably pro-Israel legislators.

I don’t mean the milk and honey type that twist themselves into pretzels defending Israel and repeating the requisite “democracy which needs to live in peace within secure borders compatible with a two states solution…yabadabadaba…..” I also don’t mean the ones that go into a self-righteous snit about the BDH (Boycott, Divest and Hate) movement but hint, ever so gingerly, that some of it is brought about by Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. I certainly don’t mean those who wring their hands and whine that Israel is turning into a “theocracy” with obdurate insistence on terms that the “moderate” wings of Hamas and Hezbollah cannot accept. They are neither friends, nor reliable.

I mean those legislators who crop up in almost every single state, (excluding Connecticut and Massachusetts), who will aver proudly that their support for Israel is based on its strategic partnership with the United States, its history and its religious rights within historic Palestine.
Here are some random examples:

In California a Congressman states:
“The United States must make it clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option. I fully support aggressive diplomacy and crippling sanctions in dealing with this dangerous regime that continues to make belligerent threats against Israel. Israel is more than just the only stable democracy in the region, a nation that shares our values, and a source of critical intelligence. Israel is one of our closest allies and I will never waver in my commitment to providing them with American support and funding to protect their people who continue to be a beacon of peace and liberty in the most dangerous part of the world.”

A challenger in a different district in the same state says:
“There is no more important issue of foreign policy than the principled support of Israel, not only for reasons of trade, strategic interests and goodwill, but because Israel is our friend and one true ally in the Middle East. Israel has for many years preserved concepts such as democracy and individual liberty in an area of the world where it is surrounded by people who view this as a threat. No effort or level of support should ever be spared when it comes to the defense of Israel and its people against their adversaries in the Middle East and as a Congressman, I promise to never waiver in the fight against anyone who threatens Israel’s right to exist and live as a free people. We should always stand with Israel.”

Full Story »


Best Wishes to our Friends and Supporters for a Happy and Sweet Passover and a Happy and Peaceful Easter

Editor: Rael Jean Isaac
Editorial Board: Ruth King, Rita Kramer

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 web site:

Full Story »


We extend our deepest condolences to the Zweibon family on the recent death of Sheila Zweibon, beloved wife and help meet of our late Chairman Herbert Zweibon. ( In Genesis 2:18 it says, “And the Lord G-d said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him.”)May the whole family find peace and comfort in happy memories of Sheila and Herb.

We also wish to extend particular gratitude to their son Mark Zweibon who has continued the Zweibon legacy with such generosity and grace.

Rael Jean Isaac, Ruth King, Rita Kramer

Helen Friedman, Mark Langfan

Full Story »

The Peresian Succession William Mehlman

The scramble to succeed Shimon Peres as his seven-year presidential term draws to a close is not a sight for sore eyes. With the exception of the still (at this writing) unofficially declared Uzi Landau, Minister of Tourism in the Likud-Bayit Yehudi coalition and inarguably worthy of consideration as “our national collective paradigm,” as Sarah Honig asserted in a recent Jerusalem Post column, the field of contenders is as uninspiring a collection of hacks, has-beens wanna-bes, tired old faces and delusionaries as has lately been assembled on a single list.

The early leader of the pack of declared candidates (it requires the support of 10 sitting members of the Knesset to be qualified to run) is Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, ex-general, ex-defense minister, ex-national infrastructure minister, ex-Labor Party chairman, ex-anything else that might come to mind. Having recorded no achievements of note in any of these posts, Ben-Eliezer’s overriding mission, Honig submits, is “to remind people of his existence.” His election platform should certainly do the trick. “Fouad,” the nickname by which he is best known, says his first task will to assure the “moderates” among the Palestinians that he is four-square for the two-state solution, ostensibly with a slice of Jerusalem as the capital for their new state. In the same breath, he insists that Israel can only close a peace deal with “strong” Arab leaders. He isn’t clear on whether the latter are synonymous with the aforementioned “moderates” but he’s dead certain that the one and perhaps only Arab “leader” with enough clout to close the “deal” is Marwan Barghouti, the former Tanzim terrorist chieftain currently serving a couple of life terms in an Israeli lockup for personally executing five Israeli citizens and for issuing the orders resulting in the murder of an additional 20. “It’s imperative,” Ben Eliezer is quoted as declaring, “that we free him [Barghouti] to have someone to talk to–the sooner, the better.”

Mr. Ben-Eliezer would have been a candidate for a padded cell 65 years ago when the presidency of Israel was created as a politically castrated ceremonial gift to Chaim Weizmann from a dominant David Ben-Gurion. Weizmann famously remarked of his divorce from all influence over the nation he helped create that “the only place I’m still allowed to stick my nose is my handkerchief.” Handkerchiefs have gone the way of tailfins and so has the image of Israel’s president as a mummified ribbon cutter. Most of the credit for that belongs to Shimon Peres. Over the seven years of his presidency, with the guile of a master prestidigitator, he has transformed himself from “an indefatigable schemer” (Yitzhak Rabin’s words) into a powerful and beloved national institution and global icon. How he pulled it off is the stuff of books yet to be written but the fact that 64 percent of Israelis in a recent presidential poll announced themselves in favor of non-candidate Peres–a margin of 47 percent above the nearest announced declarer–speaks for itself.

Full Story »

From the Editor: Rael Jean Isaac

Boycott It

In his “Boycott the New York Times” Italian journalist Giulio Meotti has some (deservedly) harsh words not only for the New York Times but for the Jews addicted to it. What triggered Meotti’s op-ed was the latest example of the Times anti-Israel poison, an article by Jodi Rudoren “Remaking a Life, After Years in an Israeli Prison.”

A few excerpts from Meotti’s op-ed:

“Salah killed Israel Tenenbaum, a Holocaust survivor and security guard at a beach hotel in Netanya, hitting him on the side of the head with a metal rod.

”The New York Times, by telling us the daily routine of a veteran of terror and by presenting his ‘version’ of the events, consistently downplays the genocidal anti-Semitism and corrosive hatred that governs Hamas and Fatah, described therein as “militant” groups concerned with the social welfare of Palestinian Arabs and their families.

“The goal of this most recent article is to continue to humanize and exculpate Arab-Islamic Palestinian terrorists who commit atrocities against Jews and stimulate the ever-increasing genocidal Arab fantasies and expectations.

“The only things more repugnant than the glorification of terrorism are all the ignorant fellow Jews who subscribe, who support and who finance the “Grey Nazi”.
“If you treat Holocaust survivors killed by terrorists as a mere footnote to a narrative of Palestinian innocence and redemption, I intend to boycott you. Readers should do the same as I have with the New York Times and its Jewish collaborators.”

Negotiating for What?

Full Story »

The Origins of AFSI : Erich Isaac

As a founder and the first chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel, I have been asked a number of times to say something about the origins of the organization, now forty-three years old.

To my knowledge, the only information in print is in Shmuel Katz’s The Hollow Peace (which centers on the Camp David accords) published in 1981. This is Shmuel’s brief account:

“In 1970 there arrived in Israel, for their sabbatical, a uniquely scholarly couple from the United States, Professor Erich Isaac and his wife Rael Jean. They both took an interest in the Land of Israel Movement, on which Rael wrote a doctoral thesis. They also encouraged me to implement an idea of mine and of fellow members of the movement–that I should go to the United States and there try to establish a framework for the dissemination of the movement’s doctrine. Thus it came about that in the spring of 1971 I started out on my trip to the United States. With the help of the Isaacs, my first sponsors, I began to create a series of contacts there.”

There is more of a back story and much more of a forward story, for Shmuel goes on to describe his meetings with leading politicians and major figures in the Jewish community rather than saying more about AFSI’s founding.

As far as the back story is concerned, Rael’s thesis, the research for which she did in Israel from 1969-1970 (Shmuel mistakenly said we arrived in 1970), was on the divisions the 1967 war had caused in Israeli politics and focused on both the Land of Israel Movement and the opposing peace movement. Apart from the fact that we found the Land of Israel Movement had much the most cogent arguments, it was a far more interesting movement, for it brought together prominent individuals from the hitherto bitterly ideological poles of Israeli politics. Shortly before the Six Day War, a left wing kibbutz had invited Palmach veteran Benny Marshak to debate Shmuel Katz. Marshak had refused on the ground he would not enter the same room with Katz. Now these men, and others whose differences were no less intense, were working together on the executive of the Land of Israel Movement. (The peace movement was comprised of squabbling groups that could agree on neither the scope of retreat or to whom the relinquished territories should go.)

I was struck by how little awareness there was in the United States that the Land of Israel Movement even existed and was invited by the movement to speak on this issue at their conference in November 1969–my title “The Lack of the Movement’s P.R. in the U.S.” The speech was printed in the November 21, 1969 issue of Zot Haaretz, the movement’s biweekly publication. Here is an excerpt: “At a recent meeting this month between Golda Meir and representatives of American Jewish organizations at the home of Eli Wiesel in New York, the idea of Erez Yisrael Hashlema (that territorial sacrifice is an existential calamity) was not even brought up in the discussion. An effort must be made to present the view that the entire land belongs to Israel, for only if the effort is made will it be possible to discover if there are potential supporters of this position.” I went on to describe the most likely–and least likely–places in the Jewish community to find such support.

This need to develop support in the U

Full Story »

Talking Peace and Preparing for War: Moshe Sharon

(Editor’s note: This is excerpted from a much lengthier piece which Sharon wrote in February 1996 and to which he returned in October 2011. Sharon observed then that nothing had changed: “The situation in the Middle East is the same, the ideas are the same and the dangers to Israel are the same or even greater.” In March 2014, the same holds true.)

There has been no change in the language or contents of the material published in the Arab countries about Israel or the Jews in the wake of the political process hailed by the Israeli and Western media as a “peace process.” There has not been even the slightest attempt to get the Arab public used to what is seen in the West as a “new era.”

The most outspoken in the rejection of the normalization of relations with Israel, let alone its legitimization, or its right of existence, are the Arab teachers, university lecturers, writers, and other intellectuals responsible for educating the children and young people, the would be implementers of peace.

On the other hand, since the fall of the ghetto walls in the 19th century, Jews have been at the forefront of the liberal movements in Europe and America. When the State of Israel was established these same humanistic and liberal ideas governed its political, cultural and social life.

Peace has always been the expressed policy of the government of Israel which was translated into a program of education. In the schools of Israel peace is a subject taught as part of the ordinary curriculum. Hundreds of songs about peace are constantly transmitted by the electronic media, and there is hardly a political discussion which has not touched upon the subject of peace, one way or another.

Moreover, the Israeli Left has gone out of its way in the sacrifices which it is ready to make for peace and the risks which is ready to take, jeopardizing the virtual existence of the State. From “Brit Shalom” (“Covenant of Peace”) in the thirties and the forties to “Peace Now” today, there is one straight line of thinkers, educators, artists, writers virtually begging the Arabs for Peace.

In September 1995, Israel suggested that Egypt, Jordan and Israel cooperate in a joint operation to clean the coasts of the gulf of Eilat-Aqaba. The operation was presented as a symbolic act demonstrating the peace prevailing between Israel and its two Arab neighbours. The actual cleaning of the coasts was to be carried out by students from the three countries. On September 18 the Israeli students from the University of Tel-Aviv arrived at the border pass at Taba to receive the Egyptian students. They had also presents ready for the Egyptians. They waited four hours only to be eventually told that the Egyptian side had canceled all the joint programs with the Israelis. The Jordanians had already sent a message that they refused to take part in the operation “because of political considerations.” The Israeli students, in their eagerness to demonstrate their yearning for any sign of acceptance from the Arab side, bought the bus tickets to Eilat and the presents to the Egyptians from their own pockets. “The peace is very important to us; we were eager to meet them and we are very disappointed” their spokesperson said (Maariv, 19.9.95).

Full Story »

The Israeli Solution by Caroline Glick Reviewed by Spengler

(Editor’s note: The “solution” offered by Caroline Glick, treated here as “audacious” and “bold,” is of course what AFSI has been advocating since its founding 43 years ago.)

By any standard, the Palestinian problem involves the strangest criteria in modern history.

To begin with, refugees are defined as individuals who have been forced to leave their land of origin. A new definition of refugee status, though, was invented exclusively for Palestinian Arabs, who count as refugees their descendants to the nth generation.

All the world’s refugees are the responsibility of the United Nations High Commission on Refugees, except for the Palestinians, who have their own refugee agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine. Among all the population exchanges of the 20th century–Greeks for Turks after World War I, Hindus for Moslems after the separation of India and Pakistan after World War II, Serbs for Croats after the breakup of Yugoslavia during the 1980s–the Palestinians alone remain frozen in time, a living fossil of long-decided conflicts.

Some 700,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim countries where they had lived in many cases more than a thousand years before the advent of Islam, and most of them were absorbed into the new State of Israel with a territory the size of New Jersey; 700,000 or so Arabs left Israel’s Jewish sector during the 1948 War of Independence, most at the behest of their leaders, but few were absorbed by the vast Muslim lands surrounding Israel.

Instead, the so-called refugees were gathered in camps (now for the most part towns with a living standard much higher than that of the adjacent Arab countries thanks to foreign aid) and kept as a human battering ram against Israel, whose existence the Muslim countries cannot easily accept. Some 10 million Germans who had lived for generations in what is now Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic were driven out at the end of World War II (more than half a million died in the great displacement).

Imagine that Germany had kept these 10 million people in camps for 70 years and that their descendants now numbered 40 million–and that Germany demanded on pain of war restitution of everything from the Sudetenland to Kaliningrad (the former Konigsberg). That is a fair analogy to the Palestinian position.

It is a scam, a hoax, a put-on, a Grand Guignol theatrical with 5 million extras. Because polite opinion bows to the sensibilities of the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims, it is treated in all seriousness.

As a matter of full disclosure, I want to put my personal view on record: The mainstream view amounts to a repulsive and depraved exercise in hypocrisy that merits the harshest punishment that a just God might devise.

In this looking-glass world of hypocrisy and hoax, though, the most noteworthy deception is the physical existence of the Palestinians themselves: in Judea and Samaria (sometimes called the occupied West Bank), there are perhaps half the number of Arabs as the Palestinian Authority’s census has counted, or the international community acknowledges. As Jerusalem Post reporter Caroline Glick reports in her new book, Israeli researchers have demonstrated that the 1997 Palestinian census was a fraud. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [PCBS] had exaggerated the Palestinian population figures by nearly 50 percent, or 1.34 million people… First, it had inflated the existing Palestinian population base. In the 1997 census, the PCBS had included 325,000 Palestinians who lived abroad. It had also included 210,000 Arab residents in Jerusalem, who had already been accounted for in Israel’s population count.

Full Story »


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 web site:

May 2017
« Apr