Monthly Archives: June 2020

“The Death of George Floyd” Opera and The Humanity of Derek Chauvin

Posted on by
5

New York’s Metropolitan Opera was forced to cancel its entire 2020 season due to the pandemic. The company’s general manager Peter Gelb hopes to open again on New Year’s Eve, December 31, 2020.

During this time, many wonder whether the company will commission a work tackling the recent murder of a Black man, George Floyd, by a White Minnesota police officer, Derek Chauvin. The Met has been known to perform controversial and contemporary works in the past. Regarding a work on Palestinian terrorists killing a Jewish man, Gelb said in 2014:

“’The Death of Klinghoffer’ is arguably the greatest operatic writing from America’s leading composer of contemporary opera. Like other operas of Adams, it deals with contemporary history, in this case the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murder of an innocent Jew by Palestinian terrorists. Although it has been accused of being anti-Semitic and a glorification of terrorism (it’s neither), I believe the libretto is guiltless in its attempt to understand the motives of the criminals who perpetrated the Klinghoffer crime.

Controversial or not, at least grand opera is back in the cultural conversation.”

The New York Times strongly backed the showing of the opera and wrote on June 19, 2014 that it was an important piece and that “the opera gives voice to all sides.” It quoted Gelb saying the composer “John Adams said that in composing ‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ he tried to understand the hijackers and their motivations, and to look for humanity in the terrorists.”

The current situation surrounding the killing of Floyd and related protests is seemingly a great opportunity for the Met to get “back in the cultural conversation” to “understand the motives” of police officers who sometimes choke and shoot unarmed Black men. It would be an opportunity to “give a voice to all sides” of “contemporary history” and explore the “humanity” of police officers accused of killing minorities, especially after fourteen fellow Minneapolis police officers wrote that “Chauvin failed as a human.”

George Floyd

However, people may strongly object to such comparison. How does one compare the killing of a 6’4” 225-pound man in a physical tussle to the point blank shooting of a wheelchair-bound elderly man and subsequent tossing him off a boat while on an anniversary cruise?

Leon Kilnghoffer

In 2014, the liberal media actively and deliberately normalized antisemitism and the slaughter of Jews in the arts and in articles about riots in the streets of Europe during the 2014 Gaza War. It served as a natural segue to supporting Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism which called for the destruction of Israel, to obtain a legal pathway towards nuclear weapons.

So when Jewish blood ran in the streets of Jersey City in 2019, the humanity of the Black residents worried about the influx of Jews became the main concern. Hating Jews had already become rationalized and not worthy of reporting, much like the Times casually stating that 93 percent of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza being antisemitic was “not surprising.” There are two sides to a killing and the grand opera houses are seemingly the right forum to better understand the motives of killers.

The liberal performing arts are on hiatus, so the time is ripe to develop an opera showcasing the important other side of the tragedy in Minneapolis and show the world the humanity of Derek Chauvin.

Related First One Through articles:

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel.

“An anti-Semitic Tinge”

The New Salman Abedi High School for Boys in England and the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel Soccer Tournament in France

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

Pelosi’s Vastly Different Responses to Antisemitism and Racism

Posted on by
19

The most powerful Democrat in the United States, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, is probably the sharpest politician in America today. She knows how to make Washington move to her beat, directing her party and challenging Republicans in both policy and directly for their jobs.

It has been quite a display watching how she has handled antisemitism and racism.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) made a series of antisemitic remarks in early 2019. Fellow members of Congress were appalled and wanted her called out and sought a resolution clearly condemning Jew hatred. But Pelosi sought to shield her fellow Democrat, especially a Black Muslim Woman. She managed to have Omar’s named pulled from the resolution and rather than specifically condemn antisemitism, the final wording covered ALL forms of hatred including “Islamophobia, racism and other forms of bigotry.”

Omar and fellow female Muslim Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) were thrilled by the wording and said “It’s the first time we have voted on a resolution condemning Anti-Muslim bigotry in our nation’s history.” Rather than being scolded and embarrassed, Omar emerged as a proud victor.

She received a lesson that hateful words and actions do not matter: it’s power that protects, and Nancy Pelosi is both powerful and astutely political.

Ilhan Omar and Nancy Pelosi (photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP Images}

On June 8, 2020 Pelosi sought to address another case of bigotry regarding the killing of an unarmed Black man by a police officer in Minnesota. Pelosi issued a clear statement that “Black Lives Matter,” and said that only “House Democrats” seek justice on behalf of George Floyd’s family and other African-Americans.

So when a Black elected member of Congress made a series of antisemitic tropes, Nancy Pelosi came to her defense and said ALL hatred is terrible, but when a local White police officer killed a Black man, Pelosi stated that ONLY Black lives mattered. When Omar was vilified, Pelosi said she was particularly worried about Omar’s safety, as though Jews were murderers coming to get her, but now seems nonplussed by the nationwide riots and violence – including the killing of police officers – after the killing of George Floyd and Omar’s chant that police are a “cancer” that should be rooted out.

Leading Democrats alongside Nancy Pelosi donning African garb and bending a knee

Pelosi knows politics and knows the 2020 election will be determined by turnout. There are seven times as many Black as Jews in the USA and the number of Muslims will surpass Jews in a decade. This crafty politician knows where her power ultimately lies, and it’s not with the ever-shrinking Jewish minority, two-thirds of whom vote for Democrats regardless of who is running.

If you want an unvarnished view of America’s concern for antisemitism today, consider the cold calculus of America’s leading politician.

Related First One Through articles:

Covering Racism

Examining Ilhan Omar’s Point About Muslim Antisemitism

Anti-Semitism Is Harder to Recognize Than Racism

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

Black Antisemitism: The Intersectional Hydra

Criticizing Muslim Antisemitism is Not Islamophobia

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Soft Biased Laws

Posted on by
Reply

The patriots who formed the United States sought to build a country “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” as Abraham Lincoln would put it in the Gettysburg Address roughly a century later. Founders like Thomas Paine railed against the notion of a monarchy as existed in the United Kingdom. One House of “Lords” and another House of “Commons”? Preposterous! Paine long sought true equality for all, “Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another; and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess.”

While the mission was noble, the execution was flawed at the outset. Slavery was legal. The country denied women the right to vote. Native Americans couldn’t obtain citizenship.

These issues were slowly fixed over time. Slavery was technically abolished in 1863, women got to vote in 1920 and Native Americans obtained citizenship in 1924. While laws were amended and continue to be amended (same-sex marriage was legalized just in 2015), there are many “soft biased laws” which still hurt minorities. Those laws have the appearance of being noble or generic, but are the legacy of the White Christian founders.

Bias Against Non-Christians

Consider “Blue Laws” which keep stores closed on Sundays which exist in various parts of the country today. They were instituted to get people into Christian churches on Sunday without distractions. No mind that there are millions of people who don’t have church on Sunday. The law’s defenders concoct excuses of giving workers a rest which is absurd; let private enterprises decide how it elects to run its business.

(Picture: Instagram: Colonelacula)

Similarly, the idea that certain establishments are “grandfathered” and needn’t adhere to new regulations clearly benefits older residents. An established church may not need to update its fire code or have certain property setback and parking specifications, but a new mosque would be burdened by the new rules and costs. Passing a law of no new churches keeps the Catholic churches in place but prohibits the establishment of a single synagogue.

These are laws which directly impact people’s lives.

There are many examples of “soft bias” which are not laws, but make clear that non-Christians are not an inherent fabric of America.

Consider all presidential proclamations from George Washington until today which end with “in the year of our Lord.” The Common Era is viewed as just that, a popular convention; “Anno Domini” is left to the Vatican. Using such language may not have direct impact on how non-Christians live their lives, but makes clear they are not part of the fabric of America.

Bias Against People with Disabilities

While the United States doesn’t put forward laws which discriminate against people with disabilities, it has functioned in preference for people who are fully able-bodied.

For years, cities built sidewalks with high curbs, making it impossible for those in wheelchairs to navigate the streets. Many subway stations have no elevators and for years buses were configured in a manner which made it virtually impossible to be boarded. While municipalities collected taxes from everyone, not everyone could take advantage of services, just because of their physical situation.

Hypocrisy of the Government

In the 1960’s the government instituted a number of laws which made it a criminal offense for companies and individuals to discriminate against a variety of protected people:

The list goes on.

Despite over 50 years of the government passing laws prohibiting people and companies from discriminating, the government itself continued its own forms of discrimination.

The United States was founded on the incredible notion of equality under the law. Complacency for ongoing shortcomings is neither excuse nor virtue. As a society we must continue to improve upon the founders’ mission, not rebel against its cause.

Thomas Paine said “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.” Let’s continue that original revolution of America’s founders.

Related First One Through articles:

In Defense of Foundation Principles

From “You Didn’t Build That” to “You Don’t Own That”

Prostitution and the Hijab

Inclusion versus Attention, and The Failure of American Leadership

The U.S. is Stealing Real Choices from the Voters

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The New York Times Recognizes the Problem of Municipal Unions, Selectively

Posted on by
1

In light of the recent killing of a Black man by police in Minnesota, the NY Times belatedly came to the realization that municipal unions protect their union members and not the public at-large. While this should be obvious to anyone, it is remarkable for the liberal media.

On June 7, 2020, a front page article led with a sub-title “Unions Using Their Outsize Political Power to Resist Checks on Officers’ Behavior.” The article continued:

“as demands for reform have mounted… unions have emerged as one of the most significant roadblocks to change.”

The Times was fine writing negatively about this particular union – law enforcement – but these are words that are true for ALL MUNICIPAL UNIONS, especially the one that the Times cherishes the most: the Teachers Unions.

Front page story of The New York Times on the police unions

For years the Teachers Unions has fought against necessary changes for millions of young Americas. They have fought against Charter schools which outperform public schools. They have fought to keep weak teachers on payroll and make it virtually impossible to fire someone who would have been quickly dismissed in any other profession. They have been sued for corruption by its own members who are forced to pay dues which end up into the coffers of politicians who may not be of the individuals liking.

The union negotiates for raises and incredible pension benefits for its retirees. The United States has a real divided society which no one talks about: those with secure guaranteed pensions who work for government unions, and the rest of America which is worried about retirement.

Meanwhile, millions of students are falling behind students in Europe and Asia in reading, math and science. According to a person administering the exams “About a fifth of American 15-year-olds scored so low on the PISA test that it appeared they had not mastered reading skills expected of a 10-year-old.”

Politicians are too scared to take on these powerful unions. The union leaders have the muscle to deliver millions of dollars and votes, so government officials are forced to give in to their demands. They look like they’re taking action by investing billions into a broken system.

The teachers unions will say they are fighting for our kids but it’s plainly untrue; they are fighting for their public school teachers, just as the police unions fight for their members. While Americans have come to question whether the police are providing safety for all people, we have known for years that the public school system is failing millions of children yet we fail to point the finger and demand reforms of the teachers’ unions.

In fact, the liberal media DEFENDS the teachers over America’s children consistently.

Consider the teachers strike in Los Angeles last year. The Times wrote about the sad state of students while failing to talk about the huge salaries and pensions that LA teachers receive. Teachers strikes are for teachers, not students. The Times acted like an open mic for union leaders, deflecting the entire issue.

This week, the Times turned on its very first municipal union and called for reform of police unions. All Americans should take that momentum and forcefully push for a complete dismantling of the broken educational system which is a direct result of the corrupt and inept public teachers’ unions.

Related First One Through articles:

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

NY Times, NY Times, What Do You See? It Sees Rich White Males

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Subscribe to YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook groups: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Adam Schleifer Shares His Positions on Israel

Posted on by
2

Adam Schleifer is running for Congress in New York’s 17th District.

In response to the First One Through article posted on June 5 about the Israel positions of the various Democrats competing for Nita Lowey’s seat, Schleifer’s team updated the candidate’s website with a section called “Strong, Sustainable US-Israel Relationship.” The section contained over 1,000 words and covered Schleifer’s Jewish background, the benefits to America from its relationship with Israel, thoughts about peace in the region and analysis of how best to deal with Iran and its threat to the region.

Schleifer also spoke with me directly about his positions on Israel which are shared in a condensed, summarized fashion below.

First One Through: Question on Jerusalem: As recently as 2008, the Democratic platform stated “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” The statement was contested at the Democratic convention floor of 2012 but approved. In 2016, President Obama let a United Nations Security Council resolution pass which declared that Israel’s control of the eastern half of Jerusalem was “illegal.” However, President Trump later recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there. What is your position about the city? Would you move the US embassy out of Jerusalem or change the recognition of the city?

Adam Schleifer: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. While I am not the president, I will take no action to undue the recognition of Jerusalem nor would I move the US embassy from the city.

FOT: Borders: President George W Bush wrote a letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004 that stated “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Virtually identical language was used in the official Democratic platform of 2008 only to be removed under Obama’s presidential tenure. For his part, Trump stated that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” What do you think should be the basis for the borders and how does it impact your view of Israelis living east of the Green Line?

AS: I will not dictate or opine where the borders should be. The goal of America should be to get two parties [Israel and the Palestinians] to start negotiating with each other. They need to figure out out a number of details about how to exchange various parcels of land, and how to accommodate the demographic realities of various areas versus the legal claims to the same, including how to get the disconnected occupied territories to become connected by a transit route.

Right now we don’t have good parties in the mix. Arafat walked away from a historic opportunity in 2000 (I was in DC watching with sadness as the deal unraveled) and Hamas is terrible and not a partner for peace. I won’t get into whether I think Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is a good guy or not; that’s not our role. We just need to be constructive in getting the parties talking.

The reality is that under international law most legal opinions conclude that the territories are “occupied” in violation of that law, whatever the historical, moral and practical realities of the situation. It’s also true that the Israeli government’s actions of building settlements in far out places and areas that are almost certain to conflict with an orderly peace process and is a recipe for difficulty both for the Palestinians and Israel to ultimately dismantle.

FOT: Palestinian State: The UN Declaration of Human Rights states that all people should have self-determination, however, the UN declared that Palestinians also have a unique “inalienable right” to sovereignty, a sentiment that no other people in the world have. Do you believe that Palestinians have such inalienable right to have their own country, or just citizenship in some country, whether their own, Israel, Jordan or Egypt?

AS: That is not a useful question. The Palestinians operate and view themselves as having a unique culture and desire an independent state. The reality is that that aspiration will need to be accommodated as a pragmatic matter for a sustainable solution. Many other people similarly have aspirations for statehood, though, and one particularly legitimate additional example in the middle east appears to be the Kurds, who we have failed to stand by after they stood by us, and we should work to see them at least have autonomous regions permitting self-rule and determination of some form.

FOT: UNRWA: Refugees from around the world are managed by the UNHCR, taking care of over 60 million people fleeing war-torn areas, forced to resettle, build shelter and schools. Meanwhile, a distinct UNRWA handles grandchildren of Palestinian refugees who have a long-established infrastructure. UNRWA has bloated itself to provide services for people who are not even descendants of refugees and has arbitrarily extended its mandate to run until the establishment of a Palestinian State, rather than getting these descendants resettled. Do you think UNRWA should be dissolved or folded into the UNHCR?

AS: I have no opinion and would need to explore the issue further. It is clear that the UN has a very troubling double standard for all things related to Israel. Consider the UN Human Rights Committee which condemns Israel while ignoring the brutality of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Sudan.

FOT: USA as Moderator: Do you believe that the US should be the sole mediator of the peace process or should it be part of the “Quartet” of the European Union, UN and Russia? How should the America’s role change in situations of it acting alone or in concert with others?

AS: The United States is now viewed as weak and ineffective on the world stage because of the current president. I am a big believer of multi-lateralism and will take the UN involvement whenever we can get it. It will lead to reigning in regional chaos and injustice.

The current president of the US unduly relies on personal relationships to manage foreign policy, but such approach cannot endure beyond his tenure. We need to map out policies beyond the particular individuals. We are in a situation now where the US has no credibility and to be effective, you have to have credibility.

Being effective also means being honest. When it comes to Israel, America is a strong friend but being a friend doesn’t always mean being a non-critical friend.

We need to include other parties as part of the peace process and be an honest credible moderator to the parties.

FOT: Iran: What do you think of Iran and the Iranian nuclear deal and the withdrawal from it? 

AS: The U.S. cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. It is a malignant autocratic regime. We cannot allow such an autocratic regime to arm themselves. We need to drive a hard bargain for a new and better deal.

More so, the U.S. must get the whole world to empower the people of Iran. Through various means, the U.S. should push for hard sanctions to pressure the regime to make real change towards the rule of law.

FOT: Antisemitism: How do you plan on fighting antisemitism?

AS: Antisemitism is a thread that unites extremists around the world. All forms of extremism are inherently dangerous. In France they self-define as left-wing and in Poland and Hungary they self-define as far right. They are united only in antisemitism.

Education is key to fighting the hatred. Holocaust education is critical, as are instituting new laws like the Hate Crime Prevention Act. We need to be creative with actively fighting against all kinds of antisemitic attacks.

It is worth reviewing Schleifer’s prepared AIPAC remarks which are now on his website.

Adam Schleifer on a trip in Israel

Subscribe to YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook groups: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

U.S. Police Are Killing Men

Posted on by
1

The United States is going through an analysis of the possible causes of police departments disproportionately killing Black people and considering methods of dealing with the situation. It is certainly past time to consider the reasons that police are killing men at a significantly more disproportionate rate than women.

According to Statista, police killed about twice the number of White people than Black people between 2017 and 2020. However, accounting for the fact that there are 5.7 times the number of Whites (76.5% of population) than Blacks (13.4% of population), the adjusted ratio implies that an average Black person is three times more likely to by shot by a cop than a White person.

Exhibit 1: People Shot to Death by Police, by Race

Year White Black W/B Multiple B/W Adj Multiple
2017 457 223 2.0x 2.8x
2018 399 209 1.9x 3.0x
2019 370 235 1.6x 3.6x
2020 YTD 172 88 2.0x 2.9x

The numbers for police killings are much worse when examining the numbers by gender. There are slightly more women (50.8%) than men in the United States. However, men are almost exclusively shot to death by police according to data by Statista.

Exhibit 2: People Shot to Death by Police, by Gender

Year Men Women M/W Multiple M/W Adj Multiple
2017 940 45 20.9x 21.6x
2018 942 53 17.8x 18.4x
2019 961 43 22.3x 23.1x
2020 415 13 31.9x 33.0x

An average male is 33 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer than an average woman, while an average Black person is three times more likely to be killed than an average White person. As society examines how to reduce the disproportionate killing of Black people, we must no longer be blind and silent to the catastrophe impacting men in this country.

An image taken from video shows Walter Scott shortly before he was shot dead by North Charleston, S.C., Police Officer Michael Slager in 2015.(Associated Press )

Related First One Through articles:

BLM: Truth, Relevance and Association

NY Times, NY Times, What Do You See? It Sees Rich White Males

The U.N. Doesn’t Care About Middle-Aged White Male Victims of Covid-19

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

 

Hamas Charter, Article 28

Posted on by
7

One can really appreciate the antisemitism integrated with anti-Zionism in Article 28 of the Hamas Charter.

D. Arab and Islamic Countries:

Article Twenty-Eight:

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine.

As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do.

We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that “Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women.”

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”

Official PA newspaper publishes cartoon depicting Israel controlling the United States which controls the world. (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 4, 2016)

Hamas and its supporters believe that they are in a battle with a “vicious” and “evil” enemy which resorts to “contemptible ways to achieve its end.” The Zionists use “secret organizations” and “espionage” with the “aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism” in an effort “to facilitate its control and expansion.” As such, “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.”

For Hamas, this is more than a territorial dispute against a “Zionist invasion“: this is a battle against a contemptible Jewish people who are “resorting to all methods” to destroy Islam. It is a violent jihad against the Jews.

And the Palestinian Arabs elected Hamas to 58% of the parliament with this charter, the United Nations pushes for Hamas to be part of a unity government, and the media talks of “Islamic resistance” as a peaceful and natural endeavor.

Related First One Through articles:

Mahmoud Abbas’s Particular Anti-Zionist Holocaust Denial

The Holocaust and the Nakba

The Palestinians aren’t “Resorting to Violence”; They are Murdering and Waging War

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

Pick Your Jihad; Choose Your Infidel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Will A Reliable Pro-Israel Congressional Seat Flip?

Posted on by
4

Congresswoman Nita Lowey has served in the United States Congress for several decades. Representing New York’s 17th District covering Lower Westchester County and all of Rockland County, Lowey has been and consistent supporter of Israel since she entered Congress in 1989. Now, at age 82, she is retiring.

A long list of Democrats are lining up to compete for her seat. Almost all are quite to the left of Lowey politically, unabashedly “progressive” with the exception of David Carlucci. The candidates’ records and statements on Israel have been quite mixed as well. Below is a summary.

First, the Pro-Israel and Anti-antisemitism candidates: Buchwald and Carlucci

David Buchwald

David Buchwald, 41, is the most aggressively pro-Israel candidate among the Democrats.

He fought actively against the Iran nuclear deal as it left Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons intact. He co-sponsored the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill in the New York State Assembly and notably supported President Trump’s declaration that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.”

Moreover, Buchwald has stated that U.S. military aid to Israel cannot be used “as a bargaining chip” to pressure Israel into making decisions which it feels undermines its security.

New York State Assemblyman David Buchwald

Justin Brasch, a member of White Plains City Council said that “David is by far the most pro-Israel candidate by every measure. He also is the most vocal against Iran due to their support of global terror and the terrorist group Hezbollah.”

Buchwald’s full position paper on Israel is here.

David Carlucci

David Carlucci, 39, is a New York State Senator with an Italian father and Jewish mother. He is probably best known for working across the aisle with Republicans in New York State government for years, often making him an outsider with the current Democratic party pushing to the far left.

Carlucci has been active fighting antisemitism, including introducing the Social Media Hate Speech Accountability Act after Jews in Monsey (in Rockland County) were attacked during Channukah, and a bill that would categorize graffitiing as a hate crime if it targets a person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation. He was particularly appalled by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio calling out the Chasidic community during the pandemic.

Regarding Israel, he is in favor of a two-state solution. He co-sponsored the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill in the New York State Senate and notably supported the decision to move Israel’s capital to Jerusalem. He was critical of a letter sent by Democratic leaders to President Trump opposing Israel applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria. Like Buchwald, he is against any conditioning of aid to Israel.

In regards to the Iranian deal, Carlucci’s campaign office sent me the following to clarify his position:

“I oppose re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 for many reasons, including  most concerning is that it did not stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, it did not address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, it lacked inspections at military sites, it allowed Iran to continue its research into what could lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and it did not prohibit development of ballistic missiles.  Now that we have been removed from the Iran deal, we must restart negotiations as soon as possible with the goal being that Iran never get control of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction.  These new negotiations must have these parameters in place to guide a productive resolution.”

Meh-Israel candidates: Farkas, Fine, Jones and Schleifer.

Evelyn Farkas

Evelyn Farkas, 52, is supported by J Street, a far-left group that was in favor of sanctioning Israel at the United Nations, labeling Jewish Israelis living east of the Green Line as “illegal settlers,” and the Iranian nuclear deal which gave the leading state sponsor of terrorism which calls for the destruction of Israel, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons.

Farkas worked in the Obama administration’s Defense department and has been endorsed by former Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shaprio.

Not surprisingly, Farkas’s positions on Israel are similar to the Obama administration: in favor of a two state solution and at odds with various Trump initiatives in the region.

Allison Fine

Allison Fine, 55, is also supported by J Street. She is far more left-wing than Farkas, having served as past chair of NARAL, a pro-abortion organization and also less sophisticated about international relations.

Fine views everything through a feminist lens, stating about her run for Lowey’s seat, “this is a woman’s seat and I think it should stay a woman’s seat.” Speaking in defense of the four progressive members of “the squad” who have been critical about Israel, she said “I think we need to support women once they are in office because the level of harassment that elected women receive is far larger than what men receive.”

She has been happy to visit Israel several times and her website states “We must stand with the State of Israel and ensure both economic assistance and political support are never in question.”

Mondaire Jones

Mondaire Jones, 33, is even more alt-left than Allison Fine, endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Ayanna Pressley and others on the extreme fringe. Not surprisingly, he is also supported by J Street.

Jones viewed Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal as “great” and was strongly opposed to Trump’s withdrawal.

While his website states nothing about Israel, he worked with the Jewish Insider to post his position about the Jewish State. In it he states “I strongly oppose the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.” He opposed Trump’s recognition of Israel’s capital in Jerusalem and believes the city should be divided by Israel and the Palestinians. He does, however, recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Adam Schleifer

Adam Schleifer, 38, has a background in law as a former US assistant attorney in California and NY State Consumer Protection Regulator. He is most famous for his parents – Leonard, who is the CEO of Regeneron, the Tarrytown-headquartered pharmaceutical giant and Harriet, President of the American Jewish Committee.

Schleifer doesn’t have much to say about Israel other than he disagrees with President Trump’s “style” and doesn’t believe it will create an enduring peace.

He is vocal about combating antisemitism, placing it in the number 7-of-12 slot on his policy goals.

For those people who want to see Nita Lowey’s seat remain in pro-Israel hands, there are really only two choices: David Buchwald and David Carlucci. Democratic primary date is June 23.

Related First One Through articles:

Liberal Senators Look to Funnel Money into Gaza

J Street is Only Considered “Pro-Israel” in Progressive Circles

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

The Insidious Jihad in America

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

BLM: Truth, Relevance and Association

Posted on by
13

“Black Lives Matter” is seemingly a simple statement of fact. To disagree with such notion would be the mark of a racist.

But BLM is not just a slogan. It is also the name of an organized movement, and it is sometimes perceived to be a racist sentiment itself as it may imply that non-Black lives don’t matter. It is important to unpack each of these at this time of social unrest and rioting after the killing of George Floyd.

The BLM Movement

The BLM movement has a range of statements and demands which are disturbing. To highlight a few from it’s website:

  • Defunding the police. While people are justifiably angry at specific actions of police brutality, the call for “a national defunding of police,” is a call for pure anarchy. It is unsafe, unwise and an assault on everyone.
  • Anti-“family”. The BLM agenda seeks to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” People should be free to live a life of their choosing so the desire to fight against a “traditional” two-parent family is immoral, and is also counterproductive when studies and statistics have shown consistently that children raised in such a structure do better.
  • Anti-Israel. The movement states that Israel is committing a “genocide… against the Palestinian people” and that “Israel is an apartheid state.” That’s not just outrageously incorrect; it is insulting to Blacks in South Africa who suffered under genuine apartheid and Holocaust survivors who faced a true genocide.

In short, one can be a believer in the inherent value of Black lives but loudly denounce the radical movement.

BLM versus All Lives Matter

It is a truism that all lives matter, whether Black, Brown, White or Yellow. If someone arbitrarily states that “Yellow Lives Matter,” the comment and person would likely be scorned as it would appear elitist and racist. However, to state that “Black Lives Matter” in reaction to hate crimes against Blacks is appropriate. It is a directly relevant statement about a racist situation.

Consider a discussion about the Holocaust. While there were non-Jews killed by the Nazis in World War II including homosexuals, Catholics, Poles and Roma, they were not the obsession and target for annihilation the way that Jews were, and did not suffer so horribly. While It is perfectly fine to have a discussion about Nazis killing thousands of gays, it is inappropriate to insert such a discussion in the middle of a Holocaust Memorial focused on Jews.

Yes, all lives matter, but when engaging in a discussion with people in a moment of pain and reflection, it is important to give them their space to concentrate on their trauma. It is a time for empathy, not self-absorption.

Protest in 2016 (picture from Vanity Fair article, photo by Scott Barbour/ Getty Images)

“Black Lives Matter” is a true declaration that should be given the appropriate space at this time, which in no way undermines the general fact that all lives matter. It is also true that the statement echoes the name of a radical movement which advances horrible ideas which should be shunned. Perhaps a different expression like “Blacks Are Just As Innocent Until Proven Guilty,” might appeal to a basic American credo and unite everyone to concentrate on the legal system to advance and perfect a just society.

Related First One Through articles:

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

Mayor De Blasio is Blind to Black Anti-Semitism

If a Black Muslim Cop Kills a White Woman, Does it Make a Sound?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Where the Virus is Killing the Most: Countries with Socialist Leaders

Posted on by
5

The increasingly Socialist media outlet, The New York Times, ran an article on June 2, 2020 called “Where the Virus is Growing the Most: Countries with ‘Illiberal Populist’ Leaders.” The article pushed the notion that countries with the worst record of combating COVID-19 are “all run by populist male leaders who cast themselves as anti-elite and anti-establishment” who subscribe to “radical right illiberal populism.” It added that “the flip side of the pattern involving illiberal populists is that countries run by women appear to have been more successful in fighting the virus.”

Here’s the actual data on the coronavirus and where its most deadly: it is in countries with liberal/ socialist leaders, not conservative.

Deaths/
Country 1M pop Leader Party Gender
San Marino 1,238
Belgium 820 Sophie Wilmès Reformist (liberal) Female
Andorra 660
Spain 580 Pedro Sánchez Socialist Male
UK 575 Boris Johnson Conservative Male
Italy 554 Giuseppe Conte Independent Male
France 442 Emmanuel Macron Socialist Male
Sweden 436 Stefan Löfven Socialist Male
Sint Maarten 350
Netherlands 348 Mark Rutte Freedom and Democracy (center-right) Male
Ireland 334 Michael D. Higgins Labour (liberal) Male

The coronavirus is a terrible pandemic which should be beyond politics but we’re in 2020 and the mainstream liberal media is hard-pressing the notion that conservative men will destroy democracy and literally cause death and destruction wherever they lead. So the NY Times again pushed #AlternativeFacts about COVID-19 and will not point out that the countries worst hit are led by far-left leaders. It goes without saying that the MSM will not print that the most deadly country by far – Belgium, with a mortality rate 2.5 times the United States – is headed by a liberal woman.

Sophie Wilmès, Prime Minister of Belgium, head of the liberal Reformist Movement

Related First One Through articles:

The CoronavirUS is Not Us Versus Them

Bahrain Takes All the COVID-19 Tests But Doesn’t Give a Cent to the WHO

Toronto Star Sanitizes Hamas During Pandemic

The U.N. Doesn’t Care About Middle-Aged White Male Victims of Covid-19

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis