Defending Israel and Fighting Anti-Semitism by Daniel Greenfield

The following are excerpts from a speech given by Daniel Greenfield at the annual Ariel Avrech Memorial in honor of Robert Avrech’s son Ariel.

Anti-Semitism has hit unprecedented levels. Defending Israel is harder than ever. But why is that? It’s 2017. Gay marriage is legal. Everything is more multicultural than ever. Everyone is tolerant of everything.

If Anti-Semitism were just a garden variety bigotry, then things should be better.

And if Israel is being attacked because of the so-called Occupation, then its situation should be much better than it was since 1967. Look how many peace deals Israel has made and how much territory it’s given away.

So why doesn’t it work that way? Why are Jews fleeing some of the most multicultural cities in Europe? Why is Berkeley a safe space for everyone except Jews?

Why is the anti-Israel movement much stronger after all of Israel’s efforts to make peace than it was when Israel refused to negotiate with the PLO?

The strategies we learned have failed. And, taking a page from George from Seinfeld, I’m going to suggest that what we should be doing is the opposite of what we think we should be doing.

If history is any guide, anti-Semitism isn’t going anywhere. In different countries and times it can get better or worse. But we are never going to wake up one morning in a world without anti-Semitism.

We have two options. The same options every minority group has. We can try to make the world like us. Or we can learn to like ourselves. The greatest anti-Semitic threat we face today is Jewish participation and collaboration in anti-Semitic movements. It’s Jewish insecurity, self-hatred and psychological trauma.

Scratch the BDS movement and you find Jews eager to be out front

But most Jews don’t knowingly collaborate with genocidal anti-Semitism. Instead they spend so much time being afraid of what the anti-Semites might think of them that they never resist them.

They worry about how to be liked. They’re insecure. They want to be nice.

Being nice is nice. Except when you’re too nice to defend yourself. When you’re so nice that you give up everything, including your self-respect, just so your enemies will like you.

And then, to add insult to injury, they hate you even more.

Let’s talk about a coat. The story of the coat comes from the Gemara, the Talmud.

Two men are fighting over who owns a coat.

They come to court still playing tug of war with the coat. And a Jewish court, in a Solomonic decision, says they have to split it. The man who claims the whole coat gets 3/4s of the coat. The man who claimed only half gets half of what he claimed. One quarter.

We are brought up to value compromise so that seems wrong to us. Being reasonable should be rewarded. But let’s look back at the original Solomonic decision. Two women come to King Solomon with a baby. Both claim the child. He declares that the child will be cut in half and half will be given to each woman. The true mother turns out to be the woman who won’t compromise and cut her child in half. Compromise can be good in some areas. But when there are compelling issues at stake, it shows a lack of conviction.

Two peoples walk into the court of international opinion. One says that the entire land of Israel, which is really Palestine, is mine. The other says that while the Jewish people do have a great historic attachment to the land, this was where our kings once ruled, where our temple once stood, from which we were exiled and desperately sought to return to for thousands of years, et cetera, we’ll be nice guys and take half the baby, the land and the coat.

Is it really that hard to see why we’re losing the argument? Why a terrorist organization that only came to its current position that it has the right to Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War, which can’t point to a single historic Palestinian state, king or dog catcher, has its demand widely accepted, while we, whose claim is recorded in the holy books of most of the world, can’t seem to convince anyone of it.

We can’t convince anyone, because we haven’t convinced ourselves.

The other side has made it abundantly clear that it won’t compromise. From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free. You can hear that chant at terrorist rallies and at University of California campuses. We announce as often as we can that we are eager to compromise. Take half the coat. Take 51% of the coat. See we’re the nice guys.

The other side believes that we’re compromising because we know we’re in the wrong. We’re that guy coming into court clinging to a coat who doesn’t dare lay claim to the entire coat, but who at least tries to get some of it. We’re more willing to make peace because we’re wrong.

That’s not the truth. But if you want to understand why we’re losing the argument, it’s a good place to start.

A compromise is still a negotiation. To negotiate successfully, you have to do it from a position of total conviction. And we lack conviction. Why do we lack conviction? Because we are afraid that they won’t like us. Who won’t like us? Everyone. And we desperately want to be liked.

There are two types of nice guys. There are those who are genuinely nice. And those who are insecure. Who want you to like them because they don’t like themselves.

That is who we are as a people. We lack conviction because we don’t value ourselves. We can give religion to the world, win impossible battles, invent, create, paint and transform history.

And we still go around needing everyone to like us.

Full Story »

Abide with Me in an Age of Posturing by Peter Smith

At my Anglican church on a recent Sunday the lady giving ‘the prayers of the people’, having delivered the accustomed collective environmental mea culpa, asked that we pray for Palestinians in Israeli jails who were apparently on hunger strike, to thank God for our multicultural and diverse society, and to help us resist hate speech. She made no mention of Jews killed by Palestinian terrorists, or of Christians being persecuted in the Middle East, or of underage Muslim girls in Australia being wedded off or subjected to FGM.

She brought her political agenda before the congregation and God. I have political views but there is a time and place to express them. And the time and place is not Sunday morning in church. There are standard words that all we Christian churchgoers of different political views can sign up to. Here is an abridged example, which I plucked randomly from a particular Episcopalian church service:

“Let us pray for the nations and peoples of the world [for] justice, peace, and prosperity [for] those who are sick, those who suffer, and those who struggle and who have died.”

The dissonance exhibited at my church stems from believing that one’s political agenda has moral authority, even godly authority. It is an extraordinary conceit. It is delusional. This kind of delusion is rampant within Christian churches from top to bottom. It is even more rampant, sans the godly part, among modern-day leftists who dominate public services, the media, universities and schools, and who infest our well-to-do suburbs.

Go back some decades and I doubt that nearly as many people—common sense was more abundant—would have conflated their personal political beliefs with moral authority. As it is, leftists now put a moral badge on their cockamamie views and therefore regard those who don’t share them as fair game for abuse. Virtue signalling passes for thinking and spawns deplorable childlike behaviour.

We see conservative speakers being refused venues and shouted down. And those who would provide them a stage intimidated by violence and threats of violence. Absurdity flourishes. Trade union bosses throw their members to the wolves by promoting pointless policies to curb CO2 emissions.

How did we get here? It is hard to say. The feminisation of schooling may have played a part. Tongue in cheek I have suggested alien body snatching. Let me go to something earthbound. I wonder whether the evolving structure of work has also played a part.

The industrial revolution has profoundly changed the structure of work since 1750 but only in more recent decades has it resulted in the wholesale switch out of manual work. In the US, for example, Greenwald and Kahn report that from 1970 to 2005 employment in managerial and professional roles grew by 153%, in service occupations by 123%, while employment in traditional manufacturing roles fell by 10 percent. It is safe to assume that this trend has not abated.

Manual work is grounding. You see first-hand that materials, power and effort are required to make things. Now there are far fewer workers down the pit, or on the factory floor, or on the docks; and, correspondingly, large segments of the population have no contact with them at all. Think of the inner-city latte sets.

In this sanitised world goods just appear, as though out of thin air. Let me speculate. The upshot is a cargo-cult mentality among the weak minded; and, more generally, an infantile disconnection from reality. Thus the wind and sun can replace coal, oil and gas and create millions of clean green jobs. Here is a mixed selection of more:

Ever more generous provisions of welfare, health and education are ‘rights’, the denial of which on the basis of affordability is unconscionable.

Taxing the rich is a bottomless wallet for making affordable the unaffordable.

Palestinians are willing to live in peace with Israel, even though their children are taught from infancy to hate, despise and kill Jews.

Islam is a peaceful religion no matter how much godless violence is preached and practised in its name; no matter how clear are the violent riding instructions in the Koran and Sunna.

Our Western past is shameful and we must be penitent in the ways of Obama.

All refugees must be welcomed across our open borders and everything will be fine.

Free speech is a right provided no-one outside of white men is offended; in which case it is hate speech.

Traditional marriage, and male and female demarcations, are dispensable affectations of less enlightened times when gender fluidity was not so de rigueur.

The list goes on.

Perhaps that old-style commie Mao had a point with his cultural re-education revolution. There might be nothing like working in the rice paddies or milking cows at 5:30 AM to refocus and ground the minds of the chattering classes. As that option is unavailable, it seems all too possible that puerile leftist posturing will go on undermining enlightened Western civilisation. Waiting in the wings is its Dark Ages replacement. I have prayer. My prayer is that God-given reason eventually prevails.

This appeared on Quadrant Online on May 31. Peter Smith is the author of Bad Economics.

Full Story »

Separation of Synagogue and State by Ruth King

American Jews have participated in outsize numbers in social movements and organizations. Among them Zionism and the effort to obtain security for Jews have taken pride of place and many organizations were formed whose mandate was to promulgate Zionist ideals and protect Jews from bias and harassment.

Haddasah, the largest women’s organization in the world, is a great example. At a meeting at Temple Emanu-El in New York City on February 24, 1912, Henrietta Szold encouraged Jewish women to promote the Zionist ideal through education, public health initiatives, and the training of nurses in what was then Palestine. The women called themselves “The Hadassah chapter of the Daughters of Zion” and Szold became its first president. Hadassah’s charter articulated twin goals: public-health initiatives and nurses training in Palestine, and fostering Zionist ideals through education in America.

Both the goal and the results were noble. Hospitals and public health systems were established in pre-state Israel and vocational training, counseling, housing, and succor were given to the traumatized and wretched survivors of the Holocaust. After Israel’s independence, dislocated Jews from Arab nations became the beneficiaries of Hadassah’s activities. Hadassah performed an epic role and attracted members in every state.

When a historically large number of Jewish voters strayed from their Democratic roots to help elect Ronald Reagan, some thought this was the harbinger of a sea change in American Jewry. But the putative tide of Republican Jewish voters quickly receded when several large Jewish organizations became alarmed by the large number of Evangelical Christians whose support for Israel was full throated, but whose social policies collided with Jewish adherence to the principle of separation of church and state.

Now here is the irony. Even as these organizations denounced the political involvement of Christian groups, they became increasingly involved in advancing the agendas of feminists, abortionistas, radical environmentalists, homosexual rights advocates and those demanding the removal of prayer and religious symbols in schools and public institutions. These issues are open to debate in a democracy, but what do they have to do with fostering Jewish and Zionist education and ideals?

Haddasah, again, is a prime example: To accommodate the growing feminist and “reproductive rights” movement, the organization’s mandate was formally altered to read: “But while Hadassah’s heritage and mission remain as strong as ever, the role of women and Jewish culture here and in Israel, has evolved over time. The organization, too, has evolved, taking on new challenges and developing new programs.”

Those new programs include legal and political advocacy for the Family and Medical Leave Act, opposition to government aid to religious schools, opposition to the posting of the Ten Commandments in public and national institutions, and demands for national funding of sex education programs that inform students about abstinence, contraception and methods of AIDS/STD prevention. The new challenges and programs also include climate change, e.g. a Hadassah-sponsored workshop on “Water Security and Climate change.”

And, of course, there’s the mother lode of feminist activism: Hadassah opposes any attempts—through state administrative regulations, legislation, public referendum, or court action—to restrict the right to reproductive choice and/or use of family planning programs delivering any and all services.

“Hadassah urges regions and chapters to educate their respective members and communities with regard to any attempt by their own legislatures to restrict or interfere with a woman’s reproductive rights and encourages Hadassah units to join in coalitions with freedom of choice advocacy groups, participating as full members in pro-choice activities.”

Ladies! How dare you? Why are you advocating for issues that have nothing to do with Israel or Jewish education and advocacy? You are entitled to your individual opinions on these issues but not to speak on behalf of women who may not share them. These are not Jewish concerns, especially at a time when Jewish survival is in peril throughout the world.

An irate member posted this ten years ago:

”Does a people whom the world is determined to exterminate need to champion the cause of abortion? Is this what Hadassah was designed to do? Does this bring glory to the membership? Why don’t we stick to Hadassah Hospital? (see her article: The Trouble with Hadassah) Aren’t there other organizations devoted to that cause?”

I could easily go on and on with hundreds of examples of Jewish support organizations (like the Anti-Defamation League) which have bowed to the dictates of political correctness and violated their charters and mandates.

Alas, it filters down to the pulpit where during the coming season of holy days, too many rabbis will sermonize about issues that have absolutely nothing to do with dedication, atonement and defense of our brethren. Where is the separation of synagogue and state?

While they inveigh against the Second Amendment which protects the right to militias and guns, they flout the Second Commandment which prohibits the worship and service of false idols– which is exactly what these hypocrites do.

Full Story »



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

Full Story »

A Cloud Called Hezbollah by William Mehlman

Hezbollah, with an estimated 130,000-150,000 short, medium and long-range rockets steered by cutting-edge guidance systems, attack and suicide drones and the most advanced air defense hardware coming out of Russia, constitutes “the most serious conventional threat” Israel has faced since the major wars of l967 and 1973.

That’s the message coming out of the highly esteemed Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Tel Aviv. It’s an arsenal which exceeds the combined total of all 27 NATO nations, rated as capable of hitting Israeli targets, civilian and military, with 260 missiles every six hours, 1,200 a day. That they have not been unleashed has little to do with either the dwindling constraints of the Lebanese government which hosts this terrorist phenomenon on its southern border or the zero constraints of UNIFIL. UNIFIL is the alleged peace-keeping force that opted out, before the ink was dry, of its obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 1701 to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah following the termination of the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

Two factors have kept the lid on a third Hezbollah strike against Israel, both of them linked to the terrorist organization’s financial and operational master, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The German daily Die Welt, citing Western sources, reported in April that Hezbollah is seriously overdrawn on its account with Tehran, the source of 75 percent of its weapons and the working capital critical to the support of 20,000 fighters and another 20,000 reservists. To put it bluntly, the “Party of Allah,” is flirting with bankruptcy, the direct result of its Iranian-ordered engagement in a war to defend and secure Bashar Hafez Assad’s power base in Syria. The generous remunerations to the families of the estimated 1,500-1,800 fighters who have been killed, the more than 6,000 wounded and the “hazardous duty” bonus allocations to the 8,000 on the front lines of this noble enterprise appear to have at least temporarily stalled plans for a major move against Israel.

The hidden danger to Israel lurking behind Hezbollah’s current financial straits is complacency. Major General Jim Molan, who served as Australia’s chief of operations in Iraq, writing in The Australian, contends that the current calm along Lebanon’s southern border with Israel may be as much a case of deception as necessity – an attempt to put Jerusalem off its guard. “It’s quiet,” he submits, “because Hezbollah wants it that way at present.” And that, of course, means Iran wants it that way until stagnant oil demand gets an expected summer boost and the till for a major operation against Israel is refreshed.

Indeed, any suggestion of permanency to the current quiet should have been dispelled by a Hezbollah sponsored “media tour” in April of the thin line separating Israel from its terrorist adversary. Conducted by a Hezbollah honcho in combat fatigues, it described in depth to the assembled journalists the IDF’s positions on the other side of the line, including a string of barricades designed to stall any breakthrough by infantry forces. Al Manar, Hezbollah’s official publication, quoted the tour leader as having told the journalists that the organization had developed “special tactics to deal with these structures” and boasted that it had compelled the “Zionist army for the first time in history to move to a defensive position.”

What was the real purpose of this “media tour”? Tony Badran, research fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, calls it a showcase of the “power dynamic” in Lebanon, a function of Europe’s and America’s acquiescence to the terrorist takeover of a sovereign nation. “Hezbollah laid it out for all to see, its position at the head of the table,” Badran argues. In a display of further chutzpa, he notes, they timed their dog and pony show to coincide with a meeting of Lebanese parliamentarians and officials in Washington with the World Bank and the IMF “to plead against harsher sanctions and to rattle the can for more aid.”

Full Story »

From the Editor : Rael Jean Isaac

Migrant Crime Wave in Germany

According to Germany’s annual crime report, compiled by the Federal Crime Bureau, migrant crime rose over 50% in the last year to comprise more than a quarter of all crimes. Germany based journalist Vijeta Uniyal reports that the figures are the more alarming because of the narrow definition the German government uses of “criminal migrant,” excluding “foreigners who have been living and working in Germany for some time.” The new migrants make up less than 2% of the population but 9% of the criminal population. Moreover they are not merely engaged in petty crime but dominate serious and violent crime in Germany with nearly 15% of all those charged with serious bodily harm coming from this group. The German government’s response is to find ways to minimize not only reporting but actual arrests. For example Uniyal reports that the Berlin government prohibits law enforcement agencies from using video surveillance on the grounds it violates “civil rights.” The result is rampant but unreported lawlessness, especially in the city’s “no-go zones.” Meanwhile officials blithely spin and lie: “Refugees aren’t more criminal than Germans” and “migrants hardly committed any sexual assaults” declared a senior official of the Ministry of the Interior last summer.

It was impossible to hush up last year’s Christmas market attack in which a Tunisian migrant murdered 12 people and injured dozens more by driving a truck loaded with steel beams into a busy Christmas market. But it was telling, as Uniyal observes, that the Merkel government categorized those killed and injured as victims of a “traffic accident.”

Dismembering Israel, Peace by Peace

Since Israel’s creation, the only way the “world community” has been able to conceive of achieving peace is by dismembering Israel. It is generally forgotten that before 1967 (while Israel was within the armistice borders of 1949) the Eisenhower administration proposed that Israel give up part of the Negev for “peace.” Since 1967, the peace proposals advanced by successive U.S. governments have all involved Israel’s returning to the old green line (at best with “minor” adjustments thrown in). It doesn’t matter if the administration is friendly to Israel (e.g. Reagan, George W. Bush) or hostile (none more so than Obama), the prescription is always the same.

Now it looks as if the current friendly administration of Donald Trump is going to go back to thumping the old, endlessly failed program. Since September 1993, when Israel made the colossal mistake of transforming Arafat and his terrorist PLO from irrelevant exiles in Tunisia to “peace partners” Israel has been hiving off control of territory (most recently Gaza) only to produce vastly more terror. The “peace partner” is now Abbas to whom Trump is making friendly approaches.

But Abbas has rejected all proposed peace deals that do not include the right of return (i.e. the end of the Jewish state). As Caroline Glick points out “any hypothetical deal a hypothetical Palestinian leader would accept, would endanger Israel’s very existence. So in the unlikely event that he [Trump] reaches ‘the deal,’ his achievement would imperil Israel, rather than protect it.”

With the Middle East in chaos, the Arab-Israel conflict should go to the back burner where it belongs. That seems to have been Trump’s first instinct and the right one.

Kaiser Wilhelm to “My Beloved Jews”

The following (translated by Erich Isaac) is from Sammy Gronemann’s Hawdoloh und Zapfenshtreich published In 1924. Gronemann, a well-known Jewish writer, served as a translator of documents—into Yiddish—in the German army during the First World War on the eastern front. Given the transformation of attitudes barely a decade later, all one can say is “No Comment.”

To my Dear Jews
The Tsar at the Kishinev Cemetery

This satiric flyer was dropped by the High Command of the German Army over Jewish populations making fun of the Tsarist professions of friendship to the Jews.

“In the first years of the war there was pure jubilation with the discovery of the Jews of Eastern Europe as the guardians of German nature and speech. There were enthusiastic songs of praise concerning their loyalty. And a collection of German literati (not confined to Jews) proved in profound discourses that the Eastern European Jews are actually genuine, true Germans–stubborn, tough and loyal bearers of German culture, committed defenders of German peoplehood through centuries of Slavic oppression. In the imperial headquarters a beautifully bound manifesto on this matter was accepted with enthusiasm. Emperor Wilhelm’s first impulse was to free all Eastern European Jews who were prisoners of war.

Fortunately this decision was countermanded for it would have cost the life of thousands of Russian Jewish soldiers [whom the Russians would have considered traitors]. Such names as Silberfarb and Mandelstamm, which used to be the subject of ironic marks by Reichs-Chancellor Bulow, now became symbols of Jewish-German loyalty and the word “Ostjude” was highly esteemed in the eyes of German nationalist patriots. It became a real political effort. Field Marshal Hindenburg and His Excellency Ludendorff distributed (including by plane) leaflets in Yiddish to the Jews of Lithuania and Poland which proclaimed the liberation of oppressed Russian Jews from the Tsarist yoke by the freedom and Jew-friendly German armies and the tight relationship and spiritual connection of Germans and Jews. Briefly it looked as if Kaiser Wilhelm had mobilized his army especially to save his much loved Eastern European Jews.”

Full Story »

Comparing Mideast Refugees with Holocaust Victims What Are the Similarities? by Rabbi Aryeh Spero

Editor’s note: Valerie Greenfield, author of Backyard Caliphate writes: “Recently almost 2000 rabbis wrote a letter to President Trump and Congressional officials to ‘ensure that our refugee program be maintained and strengthened, not halted, paused or restricted.’” To AFSI one rabbi with a brain like Rabbi Spero is of more value than 2,000 rabbinical lemmings self-righteously leading their flock over the cliff.

President Trump has been under relentless attack from those on the Left against his efforts to limit immigration from terrorist-producing areas and his call for comprehensive vetting and background checks. Beyond doubt, it is the first and most important duty of a President to protect the lives of a country’s citizens, especially where a possibility exists of terrorists being embedded within a particular immigration flow. As the President previously stated, to not strictly enforce our immigration laws is “not compassion but recklessness”.

Some groups are exploiting the Holocaust to promote unrestricted Syrian and other Mideast immigration into this country. However, it is incorrect to draw a parallel between the Jews who fled Europe in the 1930s, who were, as Jews, specific targets for genocide and Nazi concentration camps, and those today wishing to escape the civil war in their Mideast countries. The Syrians, for example, are not being targeted because they are Muslims, and there is no Final Solution planned against them. Their civil wars have placed them in very difficult circumstances, but it is not comparable to the deliberate and planned Final Extermination which was specifically directed at Jews as Jews during the unparalleled Holocaust. It’s a different category altogether.

Furthermore, comparisons to the Holocaust situation are improper, for (2) there were no Nazi agents embedded within the fleeing Jews; (3) the Jews did not harbor a cultural or religious ideology wishing to sow physical destruction on the American people; and (4) there were no rabbis in the 1930s sending forth commands worldwide to destroy the “infidels”. Indeed, (5) the completely innocent Jews of Europe had nowhere to go, no country to take them in — there was not yet a State of Israel—whereas there are 57 Islamic states, many exceedingly wealthy, who could be providing safe haven to their Islamic brothers.

Protesing attacks on Christians

If there is a genocide parallel it involves the Christians of the Middle East who have for decades been targets of the Muslim genocide against them simply for being Christian. And yet, the Left has been silent regarding the plight of Christians. During the Obama years, Christian immigration here from Islamic territories was, based on population percentages, 90% less than what it should have been. Mr. Obama moralized about “not using a religious litmus test” to over-weight Muslim immigration, while severely undercutting and ignoring thousands of Christian refugees begging to be rescued from the Islamic jihad against them.

Thus, one can’t be blamed for wondering if specific concern by the Left for Muslim migrants and lack of concern or outrage regarding oppressed Christian refugees has more to do with transforming our demographics and historic culture, our voting patterns and outcomes, and diminishing the historic Judeo-Christian outlook in our civic life.

Full Story »

Reflections on Daniel Gordis’s Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn by Roger A. Gerber

Daniel Gordis’s widely praised Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn, chosen as the 2016 book of the year by the National Jewish Book Council, is a highly readable popular history that covers the history of the State of Israel in a mere 425 pages of text, plus 27 pages of appendices that include helpful reference material, plus maps.

Gordis’s history has earned accolades from a wide range of luminaries including Ari Shavit, Dennis Ross, Michael Oren, Deborah Lipstadt and Yossi Klein Halevi, blurbs from all of whom adorn the back cover.

The book, taken as a whole, is a good popular primer but since it has received nothing but praise (with the exception of a generally favorable review by David Isaac in Washington Free Beacon that pointed out flaws), I will take this opportunity to point out some of the problematic sections in this account of Israel’s history.

Gordis does not profess to be a trained historian and his felicitous style masks the superficial treatment of several controversial topics of major import in Israel’s history, including the Altalena episode and the murder of Haim Arlosoroff, both of which roiled Israel’s society and politics from the early 1930’s (in the case of Arlosoff’s murder) to the present. After noting that the conviction of Jewish suspects was overturned by the British Court of Appeals, Rabbi Gordis concludes darkly that the murder “would not be the last time Jews killed Jews over political disagreements in the Jewish State”. This is despite the fact that it was never established that the murder of Arlosoroff was committed “over political disagreements”, nor that the killers were Jews. While Gordis writes that “Arlosoroff’s assassination remains a mystery,” he fails to indicate why this is so. Space precludes a discussion of the various speculations regarding the murder, including a possible connection to Arlosoroff’s alleged affair, while a student in Germany, with a close friend of his sister who subsequently became the wife of Joseph Goebbels. The thirty-four year old Arlosoroff was killed two days after he returned from negotiations in Germany arranged through Goebbels’ wife. The most plausible theory is that the killers were the two Arabs who actually confessed to the murder.

What is important to note is that the Arlosoroff murder left such an enduring scar on the Israeli body politic that in 1982, almost half a century after the crime, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, with cabinet approval, established an official commission of inquiry headed by David Bechor, a respected retired judge of Israel’s Supreme Court. In June 1985, after Begin’s retirement, the three man Bechor commission submitted a 202 page report unanimously exonerating the Revisionist suspects but failing to identify the perpetrators or to adduce new evidence in the case. Rabbi Gordis’s account gives no indication of the enduring impact on Israeli society of the Arlosoroff murder.

In discussing the ship named Altalena, whose destruction was the most divisive and dramatic episode in the birth of the State, Rabbi Gordis writes: “Suddenly, Palmach fighters …fired on the Altalena.” He fails to say that they did so on Ben-Gurion’s order or to mention his subsequent statement: “Blessed is the cannon that fired on the Altalena.” Sixteen Jews were killed, many others wounded, and large quantities of badly needed arms for the War of Independence destroyed. Gordis does write that among the Palmach commanders on the beach was Yitzhak Rabin, but without indicating that it was Rabin who commanded the group that first fired on the Altalena. In The Revolt, Menachem Begin devotes 22 pages to the discussion of the Altalena affair and it remains one of the most painful and controversial topics in Israel 69 years later.

In discussing the death of Avraham (“Yair”) Stern, the leader of Lechi (the underground group subsequently headed by future prime minister Yitzhak Shamir), Gordis asserts definitively that “Stern was killed in February 1942 in a shoot-out with British forces after a massive manhunt” (page 138). This is despite the fact that one of the three British officers alone with Stern admitted in an interview forty years later that the unarmed Stern was murdered in cold blood by a British officer. Even if Rabbi Gordis did not know this—and he should have—the official British story was considered highly suspect within the Jewish community from the beginning.

Full Story »

“Eight to Ten Million Migrants Are Still on the Way” Soeren Kern

At a press conference in Brussels on May 2, the EU Commissioner in charge of migration, Dimitris Avramopoulos, called on Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden—among the wealthiest and most sought after destinations in Europe for migrants—to phase out the temporary controls currently in place at their internal Schengen borders over the next six months.

The so-called Schengen Agreement, which took effect in March 1995, abolished many of the EU’s internal borders, enabling passport-free movement across most of the bloc. The Schengen Agreement, along with the single European currency, are fundamental pillars of the European Union and essential building-blocks for constructing a United States of Europe. With the long-term sustainability of the single currency and open borders in question, advocates of European federalism are keen to preserve both.

Avramopoulos, who argued that border controls are “not in the European spirit of solidarity and cooperation,” said: “The time has come to take the last concrete steps to gradually return to a normal functioning of the Schengen Area. This is our goal, and it remains unchanged. A fully functioning Schengen area, free from internal border controls. Schengen is one of the greatest achievements of the European project. We must do everything to protect it.”

Border Check

The temporary border controls were established in September 2015, after hundreds of thousands of migrants arrived in Europe, and when EU member states, led by Germany, gave special permission to some EU countries to impose emergency controls for up to two years. Since then, the European Union has approved six-month extensions of controls at the German-Austrian border, at Austria’s frontiers with Hungary and Slovenia and at Danish, Swedish and Norwegian borders. (Norway is a member of Schengen but not the EU.) Since then, several countries have argued that they need border controls to combat the threat of Islamic militancy.

On May 2, Sweden, which claims to conduct the most border checks among the EU countries, announced that it will lift controls at its border with Denmark. Sweden received 81,000 asylum seekers in 2014; 163,000 in 2015; 29,000 in 2016, and the same is expected for 2017.

On April 26, Austria called for an indefinite extension of border controls. “In terms of public order and internal security, I simply need to know who is coming to our country,” Austrian Interior Minister Wolfgang Sobotka said. Austria, which accepted some 90,000 migrants in 2015, also called for a “postponement” of the EU refugee distribution program, which requires EU member states to accept a mandatory and proportional distribution of asylum-seekers who arrive in other member nations.

On March 9, Norway extended border controls for another three months.

On January 26, Denmark extended border controls for another four months. Integration Minister Inger Støjberg said that his government would extend its border controls “until European borders are under control.”

On January 19, Germany and Austria announced that border controls between their countries would continue indefinitely, “as long as the EU external border is not adequately protected.”

Meanwhile, the number of migrants making their way to Europe is once again trending higher. Of the 30,465 migrants who reached Europe during the first quarter of 2017, 24,292 (80%) arrived in Italy, 4,407 arrived in Greece, 1,510 arrived in Spain and 256 arrived in Bulgaria, according to the International Office for Migration (IOM).

By way of comparison, the number of arrivals to Europe during each of the first three months of 2017 exceeded those who arrived during the same time period in 2015, the year in which migration to Europe reached unprecedented levels.

The trend is expected to continue throughout 2017. Better weather is already bringing about a surge of migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea from Libya to Europe. During just one week in April, for example, a total of 9,661 migrants reached the shores of Italy.

Full Story »

Coddling Hamas on Campus While Trampling the First Amendment by Sara Dogan

Editor’s note: UCLA and the University of Chicago are the latest schools to join David Horowitz’s Freedom Center’s list of the “Top Ten College Administrations Most Friendly to Terrorists and Hostile to the First Amendment.” These campuses provide financial and institutional support to terrorist-linked campus organizations such as the Hamas-funded hate-group Students for Justice in Palestine while actively suppressing speech critical of Israel’s terrorist adversaries and their allies in the United States.

At the beginning of May, the Freedom Center placed posters exposing the links between Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Hamas terrorists on the UCLA campus. UCLA administrators such as Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Jerry Kang have previously labeled similar Freedom Center posters “ethnic slander” and an effort to “trigger racially-tinged fear.” These posters pose a challenge to the UCLA administration to abandon these attacks on speech that exposes the truth about SJP and its ties to terrorism, and to fulfill its constitutional obligation to uphold the First Amendment on campus.

Vice Chancellor Kang has undergone extreme intellectual and political contortions in defending the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) as “an officially recognized student organization, based on political commitments, that is also in good standing” despite SJP’s constant manifestation of Jew hatred on the Los Angeles campus.

In one widely noted expression of the group’s anti Semitism, SJP members illegally questioned student government candidate Rachel Beyda about whether her status as a Jew would bias her decisions on campus matters. It also attempted to create a litmus test for student government candidates by introducing an initiative that would require them to sign a pledge to not take trips to Israel sponsored by pro-Israel organizations.

Such incidents violate UCLA’s Principles of Community which state, in part, “We are committed to ensuring freedom of expression and dialogue, in a respectful and civil manner, on the spectrum of views held by our varied and diverse campus communities.”

Despite his title as the UCLA administrator in charge of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion, Vice Chancellor Kang has ignored SJP’s continual violation of these Principles of Community, disregarding the harassment of Jewish students forced to endure SJP’s mock “apartheid walls” plastered with Hamas propaganda and its rallies decrying the founding of the Jewish state as “Al-nakba” or “the catastrophe.” But when the David Horowitz Freedom Center hung posters on campus exposing SJP’s ties to anti-Israel terror group Hamas, and naming campus activists who had worked to bring about the destruction of the Jewish state, both Kang and UCLA Chancellor Gene Block were quick to condemn them. In an email to the entire 50,000 member UCLA community, Kang said the posters were “designed to shock and terrify,” and accused the Freedom Center of using “the tactic of guilt by association, of using blacklists, of ethnic slander, and sensationalized images engineered to trigger racially-tinged fear.” In a second diatribe, he claimed the posters caused “chilling psychological harm” and “focused, personalized intimidation.”

University Chancellor Gene Block also reacted to the posters by stating “Islamophobic posters appeared on campus, in complete disregard of our Principles of Community and the dignity of our Muslim students. But we can, and we will, do our best to hold ourselves to the standards of integrity, inclusion, fairness and compassion that are the hallmarks of a healthy community.”

Quick to defend SJP and its violent rhetoric, Kang and Block have been missing in action when Jewish students faced intimidation and harassment from anti-Semitic speakers and Hamas propaganda plastered across campus.

Full Story »
Page 5 of 74« First...«34567»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 web site:

December 2017
« Nov