The Impossible Liberal Standard

Posted on November 10, 2016 by First.One.Through

I was amused by a post that a friend shared from The Onion called “Area Liberal No Longer Recognizes Fanciful, Wildly Inaccurate Mental Picture Of Country He Lives In,” which poked fun at liberals who were dismayed at the election of Donald Trump. The piece relayed that the Republican victory led an uber-liberal “to call into question everything he thought he knew about his spectacularly unrealistic, wholly imaginary conception of the nation he calls home.”

That comedy is the unfortunate reality of many liberal Jews when it comes to Israel.

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman speaking at the Temple Israel Center
in White Plains, NY on November 9, 2016

Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman is the President of the Shalom Hartman Institute, which describes itself as a “pluralistic center of research and education deepening and elevating the quality of Jewish life in Israel and around the world.” It does this by bringing together roughly 70 scholars in different areas of Judaism. However, in reviewing the bios of the scholars, one would be hard-pressed to find any Yemenite, Syrian, Tunisian (actually any Mizrachi Jew which constitute over half of the Jews in Israel), Ethiopian or any ulta-Orthodox Jews in this “pluralistic center.”

No matter. It identifies itself as progressive.

Rabbi Hartman came to talk to New York Jews about “Israel and the Future of Jewish Peoplehood.” His 35-minute talk was passionate and interesting (at least to me). He advanced an argument that Jews have a “Covenant of Being,” in which every Jew is defined as such by birth, as well as a “Covenant of Doing,” which relates to how a person engages in Jewish values. The Covenant of Being connects all Jews to the Jewish State by DNA, while the Covenant of Doing fosters a more complicated relationship with Israel, as every denomination in Judaism focuses on different values (or to use Rabbi Hartman’s terminology, they all have “different Torahs.”)

Hartman said that he hoped that everyone would find a way to respect the various opinions and values as it relates to Judaism (which is easy to accomplish in the US), and in Israel (which is a much harder task). He alluded to “tools” and studies that the Institute developed to enable constructive dialogue and respect.

He then took a few questions. His responses did not offer a particularly welcoming view of Israel.

The Israel Defense Forces

In response to a question about the challenge of Israel on the world stage, Hartman stated that he was unimpressed with the notion that Israel should be “a light unto the nations. Let it just be a light.” He seemed to be dismissive of Israel’s morality in the absolute, let alone relative to the world. He belittled the arguments about Israel’s army, the IDF. He snorted, “‘Israel has the most moral army in the world.’ Really? More than Finland? More than Canada?“

Really?

When was the last time that Finland fought in a war? World War II? When were terrorists launching missiles into 80% of the population centers of Canada? Have either Finland or Canada been threatened with annihilation and being wiped off of the map? Are terrorists firing into their countries from United Nations schools?

For those familiar with his writings, Hartman had stated in the past that he sees no immediate path towards peace with Palestinian Arabs. “Like many Israelis, without absolving in any way my country’s failures and responsibilities, I am increasingly hard-pressed to justify the claim that the Palestinians desire to live side-by-side with me. It is not the terror of individuals, but its aggrandizement by too many, including the Palestinian Authority, which makes me doubt whether peace can be a reality in my lifetime. If someone who attempts to murder my people is considered by Palestinian leadership “a martyr who watered the pure earth of Palestine with his blood,” where does the future lie?”

If Hartman believes that Palestinian Arab leadership endorses terror, why is he dismissive of Israel’s defense? Why belittle the disproportionate DEFENSES of Israelis and Arabs? How can he suggest that the Israeli army should behave like a country that hasn’t been fired upon since 1945?

Even if Hartman had no interest in hasbara, advocating on behalf of Israel, is it too problematic to acknowledge that Israel’s peers and neighbors are not the same?

The Ultra-Orthodox / Charedi Jews

Another question posed of Rabbi Hartman related to his thoughts about a “demographic time bomb” in Israel that could threaten its position as a Jewish State and a democracy.

He responded that there is no risk of the Arabs outnumbering Jews in pre-1967 borders (he advocates for giving up Judea and Samaria). He continued that the real demographic time bomb in Israel comes from the ultra-Orthodox (Charedi) community which has very large families. According to him, they are the real threat to the Zionism that he loves. He assured the audience that the Hartman Institute is doing everything it can to advance a Jewish and democratic state that will minimize the corrosive effects that ultra-Orthodox Jews may have on the state.

Quite a view from a “progressive” think tank. Its staff has more Arabs than Mizrachi Jews, while it seeks to undermine the viewpoints of Charedim. These liberals have excluded – by accident or design – the majority of Jews in the country (Mizrachi) while they develop thought pieces that will marginalize the fastest growing group of Jews (Charedi). These elitist Ashkenazi Jews then congratulate themselves on their progressive, open-minded ways. How? I don’t know.

The Hartman Institute is not The Onion. Its leaders do not perform stand-up, and the speeches are not parodies. The institute stands as a progressive think tank that considers itself at the forefront of Jewish thought. And for some reason, it will not congratulate Israel on being the most liberal country for a thousand miles in any direction.

American liberals, ensconced in their echo chambers, imagine a fictitious America, and Jewish liberals dream of an Israel that cannot exist in today’s reality. The former feels that America has fallen short by electing Donald Trump, while the latter refuses to believe that Israel is greater than it imagined. What each group of liberals has in common is the belief that it is enlightened and open to all points of view, even while ignoring the opinions of the majority.

Related First.One.Through artciles:

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

The Color Coded Lexicon of Israel’s Bigotry: It’s not Just PinkWashing

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Israel: Security in a Small Country

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Let’s Make America VOTE Again

Posted on November 8, 2016 by First.One.Through

The United States has a long history of terrible voter turnout.

The voter turnout as a percentage of the voting age population (VAP) since 1992 has been: 58% (1992), 51% (1996), 54% (2000), 60% (2004), 62% (2008) and 57% (2012). This compares to countries like Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom which had turnouts around 70%.

It is not that people are apathetic about the outcomes of elections; they just realize that their votes do not matter.

In the US, presidential elections are not based on the popular vote, where every single vote counts. The outcome is awarded by electoral votes, where every state has a set number of electoral votes as roughly determined by the population in the state, in a winner-take-all formulation. Therefore, if a state is a virtual certainty of voting for a Democrat (say California) or for a Republican (like Texas), it makes no difference if any individual casts a ballot. It is therefore possible that a state like Texas can have as few voters as Minnesota, but the 55 electoral votes for Texas would still be cast for the Republican, even as Minnesota only awards its pre-determined 10 electoral votes.

There is a way to get people to participate in the elections, and it does not entail making it mandatory, as is done in Australia.

This proposal is to INCENTIVIZE people to vote by weighing the electoral votes by the percentage of people that vote in the state.

If a state has less than half of the population casting a ballot, that state would only get 50% of the predetermined electoral votes. For every 2% of the VAP that participates in the election, another 10% of the electoral votes would count, up to 58% of the VAP, when 100% of the electoral votes would be counted.

Percent of VAP	Percent of Electoral Votes
Less than 50%	50%
50% to 51.9%	60%
52% to 53.9%	70%
54% to 55.9%	80%
56% to 57.9%	90%
58% and above	100%

Consider Pennsylvania, with its 20 electoral votes. In the 2012 presidential election, it had a 57.8% VAP turnout (5,596,499 votes out of a voting age population of 9,677,000). According to this proposal, Pennsylvania would have only gotten 90% of its electoral votes, or 18 instead of the full 20. The shortfall of 16,161 voters (which would have brought it to 58%) would have netted the state 2 important electoral votes.

This formulation incentivizes everyone in the state to vote, and everyone in the country to care about each state. No state would be considered “secure,” as the drive to get every American to participate in the democratic process would be critical.

A great example is New York, with its 29 electoral votes, which has been a lock for almost every Democrat (as opposed to Pennsylvania which is a “swing” state). Most New Yorkers (yes, a majority) opt to go to work and skip the polls. In 2012, only 6,160,193 people voted, out of the 13,302,000 voting-aged population. Only 46.3%. That’s pathetic. This formula would have penalized the state for the poor turnout, and awarded NY only 50% of the 29 electoral votes, or 15 votes. The loss of 14 votes would have been equivalent to losing the entire states of Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Americans are going out to vote today – in the somber 2016 election – when people have strong dislikes for the candidates. Many will opt to stay home because of that distaste.

Let’s change the current election model, so people don’t withdraw from the democratic process itself.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

The Broken Glass Ceiling in Politics Hides the Importance of Education

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Posted on November 7, 2016 by First.One.Through

Political pundits have been calling out White, uneducated old men as racists and the sole fringe backers of Republican candidates. They suggest that women, minorities and the young are much more balanced and thoughtful in their choice of political preference and affiliation.

They are lying to you.

Look at the actual numbers from the 2012 election:

By Gender: Men split for Romney by 52%/45% (7 point difference), while women voted for Obama by 55/44 (11 point difference). Men were more balanced than women in considering their candidate.

By Race: Whites voted for Romney by a 59%/39% margin (20% difference), while blacks voted for Obama 93/6 (87% difference), Hispanics for Obama 71/27 (44% difference) and Asians 73/26 (47% difference). Whites voted in a more balanced way than minority groups.

By Age: The young were the most unbalanced in their support for Obama. People aged 18-29 chose Obama 60%/37% (23% difference), while the other groups, 30-44 picked Obama 52/45 (7% apart), 45-64 year-olds chose Romney 51/47 (4% difference) and 65 and over chose Romney by 56/44 (12% difference). The older working class (aged 45-64) were the most balanced in their votes for the candidates.

Education: The most uneducated people picked Obama by the widest margin. Those with some high school picked Obama 64%/35% (29% difference), compared to high school graduates picking Obama 51/48 (3% difference), those with some college chose Obama 49/48 (1% difference), college graduates picked Romney (51%/47% (4% differential), while those postgraduate work picked Obama 55/42 (13% difference).

Marital Status: Married people voted for Romney by 54/39 (15% split), versus singles for Obama by 56/35 (21% difference). Interestingly, white non-married people were perfectly balanced (45%/45%), but non-white non-married people almost exclusively voted for Obama (80%/11%). Married people, and non-married white people were more evenly divided.

Religion: Catholics were the most balanced group, voting for Obama by 50/48 (2% spread). Protestants chose Romney 57/42 (15% spread), Jews chose Obama 69/30 (39% spread), other faiths picked Obama 74/23 (51% spread) and the unaffiliated picked Obama 70/26 (44% spread). Mormons chose Romney (who was Mormon) by 78/21 (67% spread).

The most unbalanced group in the 2012 election were uneducated, young, single black women, who almost exclusively voted for Obama. The most evenly split group were older, working, married Catholic white men with some college education, who split very evenly for the two candidates.

But the liberal press continued along a narrative that old racist white men are the last holdouts for the Republican party. They made it sound that there aren’t real and legitimate policy differences between Democrats and Republicans – just people that are progressive-thinking and those that are racists.

This characterization started in earnest in 2008, when Barack Obama was running for president. He said that some people “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In July 2016, Democrat Nancy Pelosi continued the same white male-bashing theme that “non-college-educated white males have voted Republican. They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.”

Nancy Pelosi at the Democratic National Convention
(photo: Chad Rachman)

Liberals paint all white men in a monolithic camp, even though they are actually the only demographic that doesn’t have a knee-jerk reaction to vote in a simplified and unified manner. If Republicans would speak about single African-Americans in such a fashion (and there is statistical reason to do so), there would be a loud uproar.

Liberals biased treatment of white men is a gross disservice to genuine debate about how to govern and put in place policies that serve all Americans. In the 2016 election, where the candidates have only exchanged barbs about being “fit to serve,” the American people have truly been robbed of thoughtful discussion of important issues.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Buckets of Deplorable Presidential Endorsements

Posted on November 6, 2016 by First.One.Through

Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate for president has sought to portray her Republican challenger Donald Trump as a racist, and those that support him as racists. Both she and President Barack Obama should consider that those same people endorsed them as well.

David Duke

David Duke is a leader of the racist group the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and is currently running for the Senate from Louisiana. He proclaimed that he would be the “biggest supporter” of Trump from his position in Congress. Clinton used the endorsement as an opportunity to portray half of Trump supporters as “deplorables” who are “irredeemable.” In doing so, she sought to send a message that anyone that votes for Trump is either a “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” or is happy to associate with such people.

There is no question that David Duke deserves the charge of a deplorable and maintains the views that Clinton ascribed. However, it was that same David Duke that came out in favor of Obama’s Iran nuclear deal. Should that have been a warning that the Democrats were advancing a deplorable deal?

Iran

Iran is listed by the US State Department as an official state sponsor of terror (one of only three countries with such designation). Iran celebrated the nuclear deal brokered by Obama. Does its support mean that Obama strengthened global terrorism?

Qatar

The government of Qatar supports Hamas, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist group whose goal is the complete destruction of a US ally, Israel.

But the Clinton Foundation was happy to accept a $1 million gift from Qatar in 2011, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Qatar government bought Bill Clinton’s former Vice President Al Gore’s cable channel, Current TV for $500 million in 2013. That deal netted Gore a personal gain of roughly $17 million. That channel and social media site, AJ+, continue to spew anti-Israel commentary and incite violence against Israel.

Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a well-earned reputation of falling into Clinton’s “basket of deplorables.” It is the only country in the world that received a ZERO for women’s empowerment by the World Economic Forum. It kills anyone that converts from Islam (apostasy), a right that is clearly protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The country also condemns people to death for homosexuality – even minors.

This deplorable country gave the Clinton Foundation well over $10 million according to PolitiFact.

Hillary Clinton addressing liberals at a campaign fund raiser
September 9, 2016

The Washington Post listed many other problematic parties supporting Hillary Clinton, including Algeria, Kuwait and Oman. The Arab countries continue to support her candidacy.

Donald Trump did not solicit the endorsement of David Duke, but was nevertheless rebuked for not immediately distancing himself from the man (which Trump did do later). But Clinton hammered continuously on the campaign trail and in advertisements that Trump supporters were racists, misogynists, xenophobes and homophobes. (The last claim is pretty remarkable, as Trump stood before the entire Republican National Committee, and drew loud applause for his pro-gay comments).

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton actively courted the support of some of the most deplorable countries in the world, who are homophobic, anti-Semitic, xenophobic and racist.

Does Clinton claim that any endorsement from a “deplorable” means that all all (or at least half) supporters are terrible as well? Hillary Clinton often claims that Russia supports Trump and is behind her email scandal. But that same Russia also supported the Iranian nuclear deal. Does she want us all to revisit that toxic deal negotiated by Obama, Kerry and herself?

As Clinton and Obama trash the “deplorable” Trump supporters, they should consider their own tainted glass houses, in which some of the worst deplorables in the world gave them direct financial support and endorsed their most controversial policies.

Related First.One.Through articles:

A Deplorable Definition

Al Jazeera (Qatar) Evicts Jews and Judaism from Jerusalem. Time to Return the Favor

An Easy Boycott: Al Jazeera (Qatar)

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Broken Glass Ceiling in Politics Hides the Importance of Education

Posted on November 4, 2016 by First.One.Through

As the United States prepares to elect its first female president, women in the United States will celebrate the shattering of the ultimate glass ceiling. And while the event is momentous, it undermines a critical point: the key to gender equality is not in electing women into government nor simply advancing women in the workforce.

It is in EDUCATING women, and then giving them the opportunities to advance.

Women in Democracies

The World Economic Forum (WEF) did a ranking of gender equality around the world. It considered several factors including: health, education, workforce participation and political empowerment. The Scandinavian countries rocked the rest of the world. Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden ranked numbers 1 to 4, with Denmark did not do badly at #14. The USA came in at #28, right in front of Cuba.

Why did the US fair so poorly? Almost singularly because so few women have been elected to government office, not just the presidency. A secondary reason was labor force participation and wage equality.

And which countries led the world in those two categories?

For political empowerment, Rwanda, Bolivia and Cuba, all had roughly 50% women in the governments according to the Inter-parliamentary Union. The United States ranked #97 at only 19.4%. That was lower than Saudi Arabia!

Regarding women in the workforce, Tanzania, Madagascar and Rwanda topped the list, according to the World Bank, each with over 86% of the women in the workforce. Only 56% of American women were in the workforce in 2014, trailing Mongolia and Gabon. Quite a poor showing.

But are those factors – women in government and the workforce – truly indicative of gender equality? Consider the statistics where women truly fair poorly- the Middle East.

Women in the Middle East

The position of women in the Middle East is much worse than in the western democracies. According to the WEF, the MENA region had by far the worst gender gap relative to any region. The exception was Israel, which while being in the heart of the Middle East, resembled the world’s democracies much more than its neighbors.

In the 1000-mile region around Israel, Sudan (yes, that Sudan) led the region in the percentage of governmental positions held by women. One would therefore imagine that women fair the best in Sudan, if that is a metric for scoring gender equality.

Nope. Sudan treat women horribly.

According to a 2013 Thomson Reuters Foundation survey, Sudan “allows for domestic abuse, child marriage and marital rape. Sexual violence is common and often goes unpunished.” It is estimated that over 12 million women have undergone genital mutilation in Sudan, and article 152 of the penal code justifies arresting and flogging women just for the way they dress.

Clearly not a good correlation between women in government and gender equality.

When it comes to women’s participation in the workforce, Israel led the region, just ahead of Cyprus. At the other extreme, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Jordan had almost no women working, which would suggest that the workforce is a logical barometer of gender equality.

However, consider that Tanzania had the highest percentage of women in the workforce in the world, and only obtaining a ranking by the WEF of #49 overall. The low ranking reflected the fact that almost no women in the country received proper education and their literacy rate was extremely low. So while women owned businesses and were in the workforce, they made a fraction of what men earned.

So workforce participation is also not a simple straight reflection of gender equality.

Education+

As described above, a high percentage of women in the workforce and in government does not yield a society which fully respects women and provides gender equality. Women must have a proper education – on par with men – to properly achieve equality.

Not surprisingly, countries that deny girls a proper education have a terrible record regarding women’s rights. The worst offending countries are in southeast Asia and include: India; Cambodia; Pakistan; Nepal and Afghanistan. These countries dominate the world in acid attacks against women that leave women as “walking dead” for dishonoring their families. They also are among the leaders of honor killings of women.

But a proper education in itself is not a pathway to gender equality. Consider Saudi Arabia, which receives high marks for educating women, but then does not allow women to progress in society. They are prohibited from driving or going out without a male escort. Women are discouraged from working and have zero political empowerment.

The key for gender equality is education-plus. A proper education and an ability to be a full participating part of society.

Israel’s Women

The education+ format is what helped Israel stand apart from the rest of the MENA region.Overall, the ranking for MENA were:

Israel #53
Kuwait #117
UAE #119
Qatar #122
Bahrain #123
and it went downhill from there

How did Israel’s #53 ranking fair on the world stage? Ahead of:

Singapore #54
Croatia #59
El Salvador #62
Chile #73
Czech Republic #81
Brazil #85
Greece #87

Israel achieved the relatively high ranking because of education+.

Israel ranked #1 in the world when it comes to women enrolled in primary, secondary and tertiary schools. It also ranked #1 in terms of women in technical professions (not surprisingly, because of the terrific education).

Beyond the pure figures, how does Israel treat women? Consider the report from the European Union (no friend of Israel) that concluded in a report:

“International rankings of women’s equality rank Israel well among the countries in the EuroMediterranean region. Women are increasingly represented across all levels of civil society, spanning the political, legislative and judicial systems, government corporations, the general labour market and the military. Workplace laws are progressive and women-friendly and Gender Based Violence (GBV) in terms of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, early marriage and killings in the name of “family honour” in Israel is comparatively low internationally.
Programmes to advance the rights of women have been promoted at all levels of government and civil society. With respect to women in the workplace, the state established the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) to monitor labour law compliance. It has allocated increased funding to subsidize child care centres to allow more women with small children to re-enter the workforce, hosted awareness and educational programs about proper workplace practices, launched a website with information about women’s issues, offered training and professional guidance courses to women, and held seminars for teachers on how to encourage girls to excel in mathematics and exact sciences.”

An excellent example of the fruits that come from education+

With the election of Hillary Clinton, the United States will jump in the WEF ranking considerably. While the bump in ranking is nice, the US should be proud of the long history of promoting top quality education for women.

Even more, people should not lose sight that the key to gender parity does not lie with electing a woman as president, but by ensuring that women have a great education and the opportunities to pursue any vocation of their choosing.

It is a shame that the United Nations missed delivering the world that important message as it named the female comic book hero Wonder Woman as its Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Although it is nice that Wonder Woman is played by a proud Israeli!

Related First.One.Through articles:

Israel, the Liberal Country of the Middle East

In Israel, the winner is…Democracy

The Sad Assault on Women in the Middle and Far East

The Color Coded Lexicon of Israel’s Bigotry: It’s not Just PinkWashing

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Israel’s Peers and Neighbors

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Is Hillary Clinton as Pro-Israel as George W Bush?

Posted on November 2, 2016 by First.One.Through

Pro-Israel Democrats have loudly proclaimed that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, is a strong supporter of Israel. They have even stated that her pro-Israel positions are really not that dissimilar to the Republican President George W. Bush.

Really?

“Settlements” and Berating Israel

A new batch of emails from Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State reveals some of her positions related to Israel and her approach to dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Consider the email exchange between Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger on September 19 & 22, 2009.

“ironically, his [Netanyahu’s] intransigence over 67 borders may offer us [the Clinton’s State Department] that possibility – to turn his position against him… Sending [Middle East Peace Envoy George] Mitchell back to try to get the parties to agree on a common basis to relaunch negotiations. This includes: an end to the occupation that began in 1967. –– This 67 formulation was used in the Road Map, by Bush, Sharon and Olmert. Assuming Bibi will accept no formulation that includes 67 borders, it suggests that Bibi is the obstacle to progress and backtracking on his part on an issue that previous Israeli governments have accepted.”

The Clinton/Berger plot was clearly to undermine Netanyahu to punish him for disagreeing to set the borders that existed in 1967 as the permanent borders. They viewed those borders as concessions that had been previously agreed to.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, 2009

But look at what President George W. Bush and the US Congress actually stated five years earlier on June 23, 2004.

“Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities;”

This House of Representatives motion, H. Con.Res 460, was passed in a landslide roll call vote 407-9.

Note that Bush clearly stated the opposite of what Clinton and Berger contended: prior agreements and assurances that the borders would NOT be along the Green Line which existed until 1967.

Further, the April letter from Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon underscored that the pathway to peace and a two-state future was the cessation of all Palestinian incitement to, and acts of violence.

“The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking [Israeli withdrawal from Gaza] represents. I [President George W Bush] therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel. “

Bush focused on the cessation of Palestinian Arab terrorism and incitement, as he underscored that Israel would NOT return to the 1967 borders.

What happened between the 2004 Bush/Sharon letter and the 2009 Clinton/Berger email?

In 2005, Israel withdrew every Israeli civilian and soldier from Gaza
In 2006, Hamas, the anti-Semitic terrorist group sworn to Israel’s destruction swept legislative elections, gaining 58% of the seats in the Palestinian Authority
In 2007, Hamas routed the competing political party Fatah, and seized total control of Gaza
In 2008/9, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead to stop the incessant missile fire into Israel from Gaza
And in September 2009, as Clinton and Berger exchanged emails, the United Nations was preparing to release the Goldstone Report, a 452-page report where the world body would demonize Israel for committing war crimes in Operation Cast Lead

It was in that environment, where Israel was feeling the condemnation of the world, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to add fuel to the fire by berating Benjamin Netanyahu as an “obstacle to progress.” Not a single criticism of Palestinian Arab terror, which WAS the focus of the assurances between the US and Israel.

At best, pro-Israel Clinton supporters may claim that she was simply following the direction of President Barack Obama to rewrite facts and history in the hope that no one would notice.

Democrats can claim that there was no malice in rewriting the long-standing Democratic platform in 2012, removing the historic clause that had been the party’s approach for years, “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” The entire language that was lifted verbatim from the 2004 Bush/Sharon letter was deleted in its entirety. It was as if it never existed.

Democrats comfortably pretend that Israel moved to the right, rather than the party’s positions that moved counter to facts and history, because they BELIEVE their cause to be just. They believe that the settlements are the primary obstacle to peace because they get terrible advice from left-wing groups like J Street that claim to be pro-Israel and pro-peace. (J Street just released a foolish video making fun of Donald Trump’s ties to the settlements, in time for the elections.)

The reality, is that the Democratic party under Obama’s leadership moved sharply away from Israel and the truth. And Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State followed that caustic approach to attack Israel while it was vulnerable on the world stage.

Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

On Accepting Invitations, Part 2

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis