Evelyn Gordon, JINSA Visiting Fellow, is a journalist and commentator writing in The Jerusalem Post and Commentary.

The most chilling comment I’ve seen on the mid-March surge of violence from Gaza, when terrorists fired 300 rockets at Israel in four days, was made almost three weeks earlier. The rocket fire had been steadily increasing, indicating that the deterrent effect of Israel’s 2009 war in Gaza was fading, and Israel Defense Forces officers were discussing whether another large-scale operation in Gaza was needed. “The debate within the IDF,” The Jerusalem Post reported, “is whether it needs to wait for a successful attack by Gaza terrorists – be it a rocket attack that causes casualties or a successful cross border attack – or if the sporadic rocket fire is enough of a justification to launch an operation today.”

Think about that: Palestinian terrorists have fired more than 8,000 rockets at Israel since its mid-2005 pullout from Gaza, along with thousands of mortar shells; even in 2011, a “quiet” year, there were 680 rocket and mortar launches, almost two a day. A million residents of Israel’s south live in permanent fear, punctuated every few months by more intensive bouts of violence that, like the one in mid-March, close schools for days and empty workplaces of parents, who must stay home with their kids. In Sderot, the town closest to Gaza, an incredible 45% of children under six have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, as have 41% of mothers and 33% of fathers; these statistics will presumably be replicated elsewhere as the rockets’ increasing range brings ever more locales under regular fire.

In any other country, such relentless shelling would unquestionably be a casus belli. But Israel’s army was seriously debating whether this alone justified military action, or whether it had to wait until the rockets caused a mass-casualty incident.


On March 30th of this year, Arabs and their assorted mouthpieces and derriere-kissers will begin a massive protest march towards Israel’s borders from all directions as they begin their “Global March To Jerusalem.” The organizers claim that their aim is to highlight the alleged sins of the racist Zionists who live there. Numerous Arabized Iranian […]



U.S. officials believe that the Israelis have gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. Does this bring them one step closer to a war with Iran?

In 2009, the deputy chief of mission of the U.S. embassy in Baku, Donald Lu, sent a cable to the State Department’s headquarters in Foggy Bottom titled “Azerbaijan’s discreet symbiosis with Israel.” The memo, later released by WikiLeaks, quotes Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev as describing his country’s relationship with the Jewish state as an iceberg: “nine-tenths of it is below the surface.”

Why does it matter? Because Azerbaijan is strategically located on Iran’s northern border and, according to several high-level sources I’ve spoken with inside the U.S. government, Obama administration officials now believe that the “submerged” aspect of the Israeli-Azerbaijani alliance — the security cooperation between the two countries — is heightening the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran.

In particular, four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran’s northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior administration official told me in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”

Senior U.S. intelligence officials are increasingly concerned that Israel’s military expansion into Azerbaijan complicates U.S. efforts to dampen Israeli-Iranian tensions, according to the sources. Military planners, I was told, must now plan not only for a war scenario that includes the Persian Gulf — but one that could include the Caucasus. The burgeoning Israel-Azerbaijan relationship has also become a flashpoint in both countries’ relationship with Turkey, a regional heavyweight that fears the economic and political fallout of a war with Iran. Turkey’s most senior government officials have raised their concerns with their U.S. counterparts, as well as with the Azeris, the sources said.


Chasing the Great White Whale of American Racism

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/29/chasing-the-great-white-whale-of-american-racism/

Even after the Duke lacrosse case, Texaco executives allegedly using the N-word in private meetings — which turned out to be “St. Nicholas” — the Tawana Brawley case, not to mention virtual hailstorms of racist graffiti and nooses materializing on college campuses, all of which invariably end up having been put there by the alleged victims, the Non-Fox Media (NFM) didn’t even pause before conjuring a racist plot in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida last month. Like Captain Ahab searching for the Great White Whale, the NFM is constantly on the hunt for proof of America as “Mississippi Burning.”

Over St. Patrick’s Day weekend, the month after Martin was killed, gangs in Chicago shot 10 people dead, including a 6-year-old girl, Aliyah Shell, who was sitting with her mother on their front porch.

One imagines MSNBC hosts heaving a sigh of relief that little Aliyah was not shot by a white man, and was thus spared the horror of being a victim of racism.

As it happens, Trayvon Martin wasn’t shot by a white man either, but by George Zimmerman, a mixed-race Hispanic who lives in a diverse (47 percent white) gated community and tutors black kids.




Editor: Rael Jean Isaac

Editorial Board: Ruth King, Rita Kramer

Outpost is distributed free to Members of Americans For a Safe Israel



You are Invited to Join AFSI on our Spring Chizuk Trip To Judea And Samaria – April 22 to May 1, 2012
See the AFSI website for reports and photos of past trips.



Triggered by his “Israel, we’ve got your back” slam-dunk applause line served up to attendees at the recent AIPAC conclave in Washington, Barack Obama’s efforts to domestically reframe Iran’s race to atomic bomb capability as a “Jewish” issue has become one of the more dismaying aspects of an already surrealistic quadrennial election scene.

Its traction cuts across party lines. An extended segment of the Arizona Republican primary debate devoted to the Iranian nuclear threat found Romney, Gingrich and Santorum dutifully regurgitating the notion that the “protection” of Israel was the primary justification for American pressure on the mullah dictatorship. Not at any point in the discussion did either of the three (Ron Paul was doing his trademark 1930s isolationist turn) raise the specter of a Middle East nuclear arms race certain to ensue from Tehran’s acquisition of the bomb – the world’s most lethal weapons in the hands of the world’s most unstable regimes – and the threat it posed for the West at large. It took House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who isn’t running for President, to inject some sense of real-time national concern into the post-debate discussion. “It’s not about Israel, “ he asserted, “It’s about our vital interests in the region. It’s about the United States.”



Remembering Herbert Zweibon

It is hard to believe that over a year has gone by since Herbert Zweibon, the modest visionary who led AFSI for so many years, passed away. On Feb. 7, 2012 members and supporters of AFSI gathered at the Lisker Synagogue in Manhattan to pay him tribute on the first anniversary of his death. Helen Freedman, AFSI’s executive director, who organized the event, said of Herb: “Tu B’Shevat, the holiday of trees, is so appropriate a time for remembering this giant of a man who contributed so much over a period of 35 years to the safety of Israel.” Many who loved and worked with Herb–including his son Mark–spoke of his dedication to Israel and his humanity. Charlotte Wahle, a long time AFSI volunteer, recalled that on her last visit to Herb in the hospital, his concern was not for himself but for what was happening at the office.
Boycott and Divest
Irredeemable Shimon
Combating Islamophobia
Nicky Larkin Learns



When families gather around the Seder table, many recall the dark Passover of 1943 and the climax of the months-long battle in which the small number of men and women remaining in the Warsaw Ghetto rose up against the Nazi murderers. They knew they were doomed but they were determined to go down fighting. We honor them as heroes.

There are many ways to be heroic. Because of tradition and circumstances Jews were not bred to be fighters. They were thinkers, readers, writers. And among the most heroic of those trapped in the Warsaw Ghetto was a historian named Emanuel Ringelblum, who determined to record life in the Ghetto in its reality, not as it might be misrepresented later in elegiac memorials or accusations of passivity by those who would not know what it had been like.



A 2009 addition to the ever-burgeoning genre of books instructing Israel on the most suitable method (one-state solution, no-state solution, final solution) of ceasing to exist was adorned by a blurb from Noam Chomsky: “Hilliard raises very critical issues…and unless those who call themselves ‘supporters of Israel’ are willing to face these moral and geopolitical realities, they may in reality be supporters of Israel’s moral degeneration and ultimate destruction.” It is a commonplace that moral passions are far more imperious and impatient than self-seeking ones, and who could have a stronger sense of his moral rectitude than a man who has been an apologist for Pol Pot in Cambodia, a collaborator with neo-Nazi Holocaust-deniers in France, and with anti-Semitism-deniers everywhere? “Anti-Semitism,” Chomsky has declared, “ is no longer a problem… but it’s raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98 % control; That’s why anti-Semitism is becoming an issue…” Beautiful and touching words, but words by no means unusual in the parlance of those who deem Israel uniquely evil and, with its “supporters,” responsible for the unredeemed state of mankind, perhaps even for global warming. (Clare Short, a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet until 2003, charged that Israel is “much worse than the original apartheid state” because it “undermines the international community’s reaction to global warming.”)



Once upon a time there was a lovable little country named Israel. It was a unique country of Jews. It was a thriving young country. The lovable little country also had a government, consisting only of the wisest of leaders.

Then, soon after it was born, these wise leaders of Israel granted the right to hundreds of thousands of Arab refugees, later calling themselves “Palestinians,” to return to live within the borders of Israel from the neighboring countries to which they had fled during the War of Independence. And so the portion of the country’s population composed of Jews declined.

After the Six Day War, large numbers of “Palestinians” living in the West Bank and Gaza managed to attain the right to live in Israel’s territory from before the war, and other “Palestinians” were granted the right to move into the West Bank and Gaza from other places where they had been living. And so the portion of the country’s population composed of Jews declined.



The old paradigm that a country has the right to decide who enters it has been decisively overturned in Europe. It’s under siege in such first world countries as America, Canada, Australia and Israel by the creed that says it’s the human rights obligation of every nation to accept every refugee.

Given the chance, a sizable portion of the third world would move to the first, a minority because of oppression and a majority because the opportunities and freebies are much better there. Even low ranked first world nations still find themselves swamped with refugees looking to move in.

International law does not assign any priority to a nation’s citizens over any person who happens to stray across the border. At the ground level that means the end of borders and the end of citizenship which is why immigration isn’t just a touchy issue in Arizona, it’s a touchy issue in Sydney, Tel Aviv and Birmingham. You can hardly open a newspaper of the liberal persuasion without being treated to another group of refugees in some troubled part of the world walled up behind fences and trying to get over to London, Sydney or New York.



Decades ago, while engaged in undergraduate and graduate work in Middle Eastern Affairs, the only way I learned of the struggles of scores of millions of non-Arab peoples in the region was on my own initiative. Of all the hundreds of books in my library, hardly a jot or tittle on such subjects. And even when, on rare occasion, you might find mention of some of these folks in a book, a discussion on the subject never made it into the classroom.

Only by becoming a member of the London-based Anti-Slavery Society did I learn of problems black Africans faced regarding genocidal and 20th century slave trading Arab tormentors. The struggles of the Anya Nya and other black Africans in the south of the Sudan and elsewhere were in full bloom, yet one would never know if the academic syllabus and classroom were the sources of information. If Israel was not the alleged villain, the problem was left untouched. And so while I would be exposed to alleged Zionist fascism, racism, colonialism, imperialism, and dozens of other Hebrew sins, barely a word was spoken about the subjugation (largely by Arabs, but also by others such as Turks and Iranians) of Kurds, Imazighen (“Berbers”), Copts, Assyrians, native Jews, and so forth. To learn of Kurds back then, the Little Miss Muffet nursery rhyme provided more information than academia…and those were the wrong curds.



American universities can claim many kinds of traditions. Unfortunately, not all of them are noble or praiseworthy. The current wave of anti-Israel–read anti-Semitic– demonstrations are only the current manifestations of a long tradition of selective bigotry, from the 1930s hospitality shown representatives of Hitler’s Germany to the warm welcome enjoyed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University in 2007. The boycott/divestment movement on campuses is only the latest example.


http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ The only real lesson of the ObamaCare defense is that if you define the macro broadly enough, you are entitled to completely control every aspect of the micro. Everyone can be compelled to buy health insurance because health care is no longer a service bought from a doctor, it is a national market which […]


There are enough examples of satanic “lone gunmen” who slaughter innocents….driven by insanity and inner demons.

Mohammed Merah is a soldier in Jihad. He is driven and celebrated by his fraternity of faith driven haters of Jews and Israel. He wielded his weapons alone but his commanding officers are the imams and worshipers of radical Islam who preach their blood cult daily.
When will the West wake up?


Today’s Hot Topics

We choose, you peruse.

Administration Admits to Court: Under Obamacare, Select Group Can Get Health Care, Not Pay for It, Not Buy Insurance, Not Pay Penalty
Supreme Court hearing on individual mandate tees up blockbuster decision
Gas Prices Expected To Continue Rising This Spring
Sarkozy bans imams from entering France in fundamentalist crackdown after Toulouse shootings
Nancy Reagan character in new movie to be played by … Jane Fonda
Next attack will be much more devastating than terror attacks in India and Bangkok, Iran warns
FreedomWorks Delivers Petition to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid with Over 120,000 Signatures to “End Obamacare Now”
Cash-strapped city looks to sell off historic landmarks
North Korea snubs Barack Obama over missile
U.S. plays down Islamist role in drafting Egypt charter



“Even (Clueless)George Clooney realizes the Bashir regime is doing all it can to please its Islamist opposition. Bashir’s most powerful opponent is cleric Hasan al-Turabi; it’s hard to overstate his impact on the growth of Islamic extremism in the Sudan.”

The Sudanese regime is on its way to becoming the next Iran, regardless of whether President Omar Bashir remains in power or not. The country is moving towards becoming a full-blown Sharia state, comparable to Iran, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Towards that end, 500-700,000 Christians have been told to pack up and leave by April 8 or they’ll be treated as foreigners.

The Bashir regime has always been an enemy of the U.S. and those who value human rights but it is now doing everything it can to please its Islamist opposition. The regime knew it would raise the ire of the Islamists when it allowed the mostly-Christian region of South Sudan to become an independent country. In the hopes of staving off a rebellion, Bashir promised to remodel his country based on Sharia Law with Arabic as the only official language. He also promised not to seek another term in 2015.

Bashir’s most powerful opponent is a cleric named Hasan al-Turabi, the leader of the Sudanese branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is hard to overstate his impact on the growth of Islamic extremism and terrorism. He has been called “Sudan’s Osama” and “The Pope of Terrorism.” After helping Bashir come to power, Turabi used his base in Sudan to build close relationships with every virtually single Islamic terrorist group and government. He worked hard to bring together secularists like Saddam Hussein, Sunni radicals like Osama Bin Laden and Shiite radicals like Iran and Hezbollah into a common anti-Western front. Turabi became close with Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, though he today criticizes some of their tactics as being “counterproductive.”

How to Play the Game of Blood Justice: Norman Simms

After the lone gunman, Mohammed Merah, was shot and killed by a French sharpshooter, the details of who and what he was have started to come out, and the commentaries to pour forth to explain why he did what he did. One word stands out that makes me stop to think: rampage.

A rampage is an uncontrollable act, a rage of fury starting out almost from nowhere and concluding in an explosion of violence. But everything I have seen and heard about more than three weeks of murders—first a single soldier, then a group of paratroopers, and then the killing of three children and a rabbi at a Jewish high school—indicates something quite other than an outburst of murderous rage. In each case, the young Frenchman of Algerian background rode his stolen motor scooter to the target area, dismounted, walked up to his victims, and shot them at close range, leaving burn marks on their skin. There were many days between each of these attacks. Mohammed also told police by phone as they encircled his flat in Toulouse that he had been planning at least one further shooting and he regretted not having more victims. This is not a rampage. If not, what is it?

Does it matter? No, not to the victims or their family and friends. For them, it is cold-blooded murder, another example of racist hate, and an unbearable tragedy. But it does matter to the security forces, police, and commentators who try to prevent similar events and to protect themselves when they hunt down and try to capture the perpetrators. If these killings were the result of a murderous rage, then it would be hard to predict who among the thousands, if not millions, of disaffected, angry young men, members of minority groups disadvantaged by this society or that, will finally have had enough and race out in a fury to maim or kill individuals designated by hate speech and cultural norms as worthy of being so attacked.