October | 2020 | First One Through

In the excitement stemming from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain forging a path towards peace with Israel, people have speculated which Arab countries would be next. Sudan has been mentioned and the media has speculated that the United States might remove the country from states sponsoring terrorism to help make such normalization happen.

This is all a terrible idea. Sudan needs Israel, not the reverse.

Geography. The UAE and Bahrain both sit opposite the Persian Gulf from Israel’s nemesis, Iran. The proximity to that country may prove vital in dealing with such leading state sponsor of terrorism which has called for Israel’s destruction. Conversely, Sudan is over one thousand miles in the opposite direction.

Military. Both the UAE and Bahrain have over 5,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in the countries. Neighboring Kuwait and Qatar have a combined 25,000 U.S. military personnel. Coordinating forces against Iran with established U.S. military bases is an obvious advantage in stabilizing the region. Sudan has no such U.S. military presence.

Wealth. The UAE and Bahrain are very wealthy countries, with the GDP per capita of $43,000 (slightly ahead of Israel at $42,000) and $24,000, respectively. This compares to a Sudanese GDP per capita of roughly $977. The investment and trade possibilities with the Gulf states are significant while Sudan will be seeking aid from Israel, not trade with Israel.

Culture. The UAE and Bahrain are far from beacons of democracy with liberal policies, however, they are light years ahead of Sudan. Consider that each gulf kingdom still has the death penalty which Bahrain uses for premeditated murder and treason, and the UAE uses for rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery. Meanwhile Sudan kills people for homosexuality, prostitution and apostasy (converting from Islam) – “offenses” which harm no one.

Since its founding, Sudan has been through a series of civil wars, genocides and crimes against humanity. In total, over 2 million people have been killed in Sudan during some of the most heinous actions since World War II. The country remains an unstable haven for terrorists. Today’s U.S. policy vis-a-vis Sudan is “focused on ensuring that Sudan does not provide support to or a safe haven for international terrorists.“ If that’s the basis for U.S. policy, there is no reason for any party to go out of its way to advance normalization with this failed state.

Should Sudan want to join civilization, it can pay the hundreds of millions owed to the victims of terror, remove the penalty of capital punishment for apostasy and homosexuality, and end its systemic anti-Semitism by recognizing the Jewish State. If not, the U.S., Israel and the world will do quite well without this particular trading partner and vote at the United Nations.

Aftermath of violent clashes in Darfur on 30 December 2019

Related First One Through articles:

Conditional U.S. Support in The Middle East

Naked Trades in the Middle East

Dancing with the Asteroids

Israel and Wars

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

June 23^rd was the Democratic Primary in New York. As the coronavirus was still raging, I decided to vote a day beforehand to avoid crowds.

I arrived at the voting location in White Plains about an hour before its scheduled close. There were only two Hispanic men in front of me inside, so I was able to enter as the center had a strict limit on the number of voters allowed indoors at one time. The men were clearly frustrated, engaged in a discussion with officials behind the partition glass.

I went to an open window and told the middle-aged woman that I needed a ballot. I gave her my name and she looked me up in the system. In short order it became clear that it was not going to be a quick vote as she got up and said she needed to check something.

While waiting for her return, I got a clearer picture of the saga involving the two Hispanic men. It seemed that they had brought in a large number of ballots to submit, and the official who I later learned was Reginald LaFayette, the Chairman of the Westchester County Democratic Party, said that he could not accept the stack of votes. The men left, disappointed, and other people who had waited outside soon took their place at the window. I would watch thirteen other people come-and-go during the twenty minutes I was there.

I was told that my party registration was in question and that it was not clear I was qualified to vote in the Democratic primary. While I had been a Democrat for decades, I switched party affiliations to Libertarian in 2018 after Tom Perez, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee said that the future of the Democrats was with the far-left progressives winning House seats. However, for this election, a friend heavily involved in Westchester politics told me about the importance of switching back to being a Democrat as Congressperson Nita Lowey was retiring and her seat was being pursued by another far-left progressive named Mondaire Jones. My friend dropped change of party affiliation forms (for my wife as well) at my house in January 2020 and told me to submit them by Valentine’s Day. I mailed mine in two days before the deadline.

Not according to the Westchester Democratic Party.

According to their records, my change form was marked received in their ledger on February 19, several days after the deadline. I protested that it could not have taken a week for the mail to arrive and Lafayette joined the discussion. He went to the records and pulled the envelope I had mailed to check the postmark date. It proved illegible – perhaps the 11th or the 17th – and LaFayette decided to let me vote. This was another indication of the power the chairman had to allow (me) or disallow (the Hispanic men) votes.

There were other interesting observations during my wait.

Of the thirteen other people I watched vote, six were White and seven were Black. The White people ranged in age from college girls to an older couple, with each casting a single ballot. In sharp contrast, every Black person was in a narrower age range (roughly late 20’s to mid-40’s) and they all brought several ballots with them. The quantities were less than from the Hispanic men – handfuls rather than dozens – but the difference was striking. Why were the Black people bringing in outside votes which were all accepted, while the White people only voted for themselves and the ream of Hispanic people’s ballots were disqualified? I heard one Black woman say that the additional ballots she was submitting were from her parents and aunt who had recently moved to the city, but what about the others?

My mind wandered-

Were these people very effective at collecting ballots at their churches to get the vote out for their favorite candidate? Did they go door to door in their neighborhood? If they went to a nursing home and took dozens of ballots from elderly people, could they have effectively stuffed the ballot box with their own personal preferred candidate? What kind of questions could Lafayette – or anyone tasked with such a situation around the country – ask to determine if the votes should be admissible?

Westchester County Democratic Committee Chairman Reginald A. Lafayette

President Trump has argued that the mail-in system is ripe for voter fraud. While I hope that will not happen, I witnessed either the very essence of fraud or a skilled person ensuring a fair election. I honestly don’t know which.

What is clear to me, is that if this turns out to be a close election, the local people at the voting centers will have a greater impact on the winner of the 2020 presidential race than the Supreme Court.