Will A Reliable Pro-Israel Congressional Seat Flip?

Posted on June 5, 2020 by First.One.Through

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 June 4, 2020 by First.One.Through

“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 June 2, 2020 by First.One.Through

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

Schrodinger’s Cat and Oslo’s Egg

Posted on June 1, 2020 by First.One.Through

Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger developed a thought experiment in 1935 in which he tried to explain a situation of a cat existing in a dual state – both dead and alive – as a way of explaining quantum mechanics. In the experiment, a cat in a sealed box may or may not have been exposed to a poison and killed. Only when the box is lifted, is the cat revealed to be one of the two states. The example demonstrates the divide between reality inside the box which is only known to the cat and the two possible outcomes considered by the blind observer.

The situation of the Israeli-Arab Conflict can be viewed in such a manner, particularly regarding the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995.

Since the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations) supported the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland one hundred years ago, the Arab world fought to destroy it. From riots to wars to terrorist attacks, the surrounding Arab countries and Arab residents in Palestine took upon themselves a jihad to annihilate the Jewish State.

The Oslo Accords seemed to reverse that course. On its face, the Palestinians appeared willing to lay down their arms and accept the existence of Israel subject to a variety of terms. Israel signed the agreement and handed the newly created Palestinian Authority several cities to govern. Over the next five years, despite numerous terrorist attacks, the Israelis continued to try to forge a deal together with the assistance of the United States.

Details of the negotiations were kept under wraps, much like Schrodinger’s cat. The world was hopeful that the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs would be able to conclude a lasting peace agreement. To the outside observers, there was the open reality of Arabs killing Jews and a Hamas charter which completely rejected Israel’s existence but the active involvement of the Clinton administration made people hopeful that peace would emerge at the end of the five year interim agreement in September 2000.

However, Yasser Arafat was unhappy to not get every item he desired in the negotiations and launched the deadly Second Intifada, killing and maiming thousands of civilians. President Bill Clinton told Arafat that he missed the best peace deal the Palestinians would ever see and bemoaned “I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat smashed the covered Israeli dove egg before it was hatched.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, U.S. President Bill Clinton and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat at Camp David, July 2000

The Arab League tried to put Humpty Dumpty together again and save the Palestinians from the scorn of the world. It put forth the Arab Peace Initiative (API) in 2002 which basically repeated the Palestinians demands, with the promise of the full recognition of Israel by the Arab and Muslim world. While Israel rejected those specific parameters, it began to take steps to give the Palestinians additional land once it secured assurances from the U.S. George W Bush administration in 2004 that it would not have to adhere to exact terms of the API.

U.S. President Barack Obama pivoted and put significant pressure on Israel towards the API once he took office in 2009. Under Secretary of State John Kerry, Israelis and the Palestinian Authority (PA) worked under secrecy through the Spring 2014 to try to arrive at a final settlement. The world waited to see if the Second Intifada and Gaza Wars of 2008 and 2012 were going to be shadows of the past, and the imagined Obama magic would render Humpty Dumpty viable again.

But it was not to be. The PA signed a unity government with the terrorist group Hamas and Israel refused to hand over the last batch of prisoners as part of “good faith” measures as Kerry had inserted murderers on the list. Within weeks, the situation rapidly devolved into an intense war in Gaza. This time, the Obama administration blamed the failure on Israel, and ultimately allowed a United Nations resolution to pass in the waning days of its administration labeling the West Bank as “Palestinian territory” which Israel illegally occupies.

Humpty Dumpty has now observed to be shattered and dead for the second time. The only change in 2014 from 2000 was the charge of the U.S. administration as to the cause for the failure, which fanned the flames of antisemitism throughout Europe during the 2014 war with Hamas.

The Trump administration recognized the results of the various failed peace initiatives and laid out a new road map to coexistence which more closely resembled the desires of America’s ally, Israel, rather than the API which parroted Palestinian demands. The Palestinians have refused to engage with the administration and no secret talks are enabling the imagination to ponder whether the possibility of peace is alive or dead.

Today, there is no Oslo egg in Schrodinger’s box waiting to be hatched, but a single reality for everyone to recognize.

Related First One Through articles:

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

The US Recognizes Israel’s Reality

The Shrapnel of Intent

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

The Peace Proposal Monologues

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Africans in Minnesota

Posted on May 31, 2020 by First.One.Through

The United States has always been a country of immigrants since its founding days. During the Industrial Revolution of the 1880’s to 1910 the wave of immigrants from Europe made the country have a large white majority. The push back against immigrants during World War I and the Great Depression mostly sealed U.S. borders for decades which only began to change meaningfully in the 1960’s.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 removed the quota system that capped immigration from each country, greatly benefiting non-European countries. While U.S. immigration in the 1960’s was split 75%, 9% and 5% for Europe, Latin America and Asia, respectively, by the 1980’s the continents of origin were 23%, 44% and 26%, respectively.

Africa has not been a major source of immigrants over the past 100 years. In 2018, just over 2 million of the country’s 44.7 million immigrants came from sub-Saharan Africa. While small, this figure has grown rapidly, from 691,000 in 2000 and 130,000 in 1980. The largest number of immigrants comes from Nigeria, the African country with the largest population, followed by Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya.

Many of these immigrants live in the large states, including New York, California, Texas, Florida, Ohio and New Jersey. Others have settled into smaller states including Georgia, Connecticut, Maryland and Virginia.

But nowhere has the African immigrant population been felt as dramatically as in Minnesota.

Exhibit 1: Black Population, by Place of Birth

State	Foreign-born	US-born	Multiple
Minnesota	27.4%	4.6%	5.96
Washington	6.5%	3.4%	1.91
Connecticut	16.5%	10.0%	1.65
Ohio	16.7%	12.2%	1.37
New York	19.4%	14.6%	1.33
Pennsylvania	14.3%	10.9%	1.31
Florida	15.9%	16.0%	0.99
Indiana	8.9%	9.6%	0.93
Maryland	26.8%	30.5%	0.88
New Jersey	11.7%	14.1%	0.83
Wisconsin	5.0%	6.4%	0.78
United States	9.5%	13.2%	0.72
Tennessee	10.6%	17.1%	0.62
Virginia	11.6%	20.2%	0.57
Georgia	18.6%	33.0%	0.56
North Carolina	9.2%	22.5%	0.41
Michigan	5.8%	14.4%	0.40
Alabama	8.1%	27.4%	0.30
Illinois	4.2%	15.7%	0.27
California	1.7%	7.3%	0.23
South Carolina	5.7%	27.7%	0.21
Louisiana	6.7%	33.5%	0.20
Mississippi	7.3%	38.8%	0.19

As seen on Exhibit 1, overall in the United States, Black people account for 13.2% of the U.S.-born population and 9.5% of the foreign-born population. In southern states like South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi, Blacks make up a significant percentage of the population, almost all being born in the United States. In several northern states like Ohio, Washington, Connecticut and New York, the Black population born in Africa is significant, surpassing the overall mix of U.S.-born Black people in the state.

In Minnesota, the immigrant population is driven by Blacks from Africa, accounting for six times the percentage of U.S.-born blacks in the state. While Africans account for under ten per cent of the overall US immigrant population, they account for 27.4% of the immigrant population in Minnesota, nearly three times the rate.

Exhibit 2: Foreign-born Population in Minnesota by Continent

Exhibit 2 shows how Africa’s share of the Minnesota immigrant community has grown from 4.3% in 1990 to 27.2% in 2018. Since 2000, it is the only region which has grown its share, reversing the trend even for immigrants from Latin America. It is the only state in the country with this phenomenon.

African-born immigrants have moved to Minnesota at a scale not seen anywhere else in the United States. The percentage far surpasses US-born Blacks and eclipses Latin American and European immigrants. In 2018, they helped elect the first immigrant from Africa to Congress, Ilhan Omar from Somalia. Will their numbers impact future elections as well?

Related First One Through articles:

The Explosion of Immigrants in the United States

There’s No White Privilege for Prostitutes in Minnesota

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

Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota

The Insidious Jihad in America

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

YouTube Enhances Hatred of Israel and Extinguishes Hate for Palestinians

Posted on May 27, 2020 by First.One.Through

Try this yourself (you don’t really need to as I just did it). Type in “I hate Israel” and “I hate Palestine” in the YouTube search bar and be amazed by the results.

The search results for “I hate Palestine,” yielded only ONE of the first twenty entries with something negative about Palestinians; the balance were about how Israel harms Palestinians. However, in searching for “I hate Israel,” SEVENTEEN of the top twenty results were negative about the Israeli government and people. Five videos appeared in both searches, three of which could generously be called “neutral” and two anti-Israel.

Does YouTube have algorithms that promote anti-Zionism or have the anti-Zionists effectively gamed YouTube’s algorithm to promote a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel commentary on the largest online platform?

“I Hate Israel” Top 20 results

Muslim-Americans discuss attitudes toward Israel CBSN (419k views)
Rebel Rabbis: Anti-Zionist Jews Against Israel Vice (2325k)
Jews and Arabs react to Israel’s nation-state law TRT World (10k)
Youtube series explores what Israelis and Palestinians really think about the conflict PBS NewsHour (65k)
UK: London Orthodox Jews burn Israeli flag on Purim RT (488k)
The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history Vox (7381k)
USA: Anti-Zionist Jews stage Gaza funeral at NY’s Israel embassy Ruptly (11k)
PM Netanyahu: Dear Arab citizens of Israel–take part in our society in droves IsraelPM (53k)
Why Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem Vox (1224k)
Why Antisemites Love Israel AJ+ (71k)
Do Israelis Hate Ultra-Orthodox Jews? NowThis World (326k)
Christians in Israel face rise in hate crimes Al Jazeera (219k)
Jerusalem Jewish group’s anti-Arab patrol BBC (26k)
Jewish settler hate crime in Israel increasingly targets Christians Euronews (24k)
Palestinian Christians under Israeli occupation speak out TRT (174k)
Germans in Israel. Israelis in Germany DW Documentary (82k)
Israelis take to streets to support Palestinian state France24 (12k)
Muslim-Jewish wedding in Israel draws furious response AFP News (257k)
Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem describe life under Israeli occupation TRT (144k)
When does criticism of Israel cross into anti-Semitism? Washington Post (222k)

Only number 8, with a mere 53,000 views, showed Israel in a favorable manner.

“I Hate Palestine” Top 20 results

Youtube series explores what Israelis and Palestinians really think about the conflict PBS News Hour (65k)
Why Israelis and Palestinians both claim Jerusalem Vox (1224k)
The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history Vox (7381k)
Conflict in Israel and Palestine: Crash Course World History 223 Crashcourse (7364k)
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, explained Washington Post (55k)
Young Palestinians see no end to the Israeli Occupation CBC News (18k)
Palestinian Christians under Israeli occupation speak out TRT World (174k)
Israeli troops kill Palestinian on the Gaza border Euronews (7164k)
Netanyahu Says Palestinians Should “Abandon The Fantasy That They Will Conquer Jerusalem” (HBO) Vice News (748k)
Anti-Palestine hate posted every 71 seconds TRT World (1k)
Trump recognises Israel but not Palestine TRT World (176k)
Israelis take to streets to support Palestinian state France24 (12k)
Culture of Hate – the Palestinian Incitement Kills Israel Foreign Ministry (43k)
What Happened On The Israeli Side Of The Border During U.S. Embassy Protests (HBO) Vice News (560k)
The Israel and Gaza Conflict From A Celebrities’ Perspective AJ+ (200k)
Why Are Israel and Palestine Fighting? NowThisWorld (1029k)
Obama to Israelis: Put yourselves in Palestinians’ shoes CBS News (11k)
Author: I am Jewish and Palestinian CNN (30k)
Elderly Palestinian man confronts armed Israeli soldiers before collapsing OnDemandNews (2275k)
At least 25 Palestinians killed in Gaza-Israel border clashes BBC (458k)

Videos and Viewership

TRT World from Turkey is effective at promoting the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian narrative as is the Qatari-run Al Jazeera/ AJ+. Of the top 40 slots, nine are taken by the major Muslim media companies. Only a single slot is held by Israel’s video.

Online media companies Vox and Vice have seven videos of the top 40, an impressive showing relative to the major European outlets BBC, Euronews and France24 with a total of six videos, all highly critical of Israel.

A left-wing channel NowThis had two videos, averaging 678,000 views. While the online-oriented channels Vox and Vice average 2.27 million views, the traditional media companies like the Washington Post averaged just 139,000 for its two videos and CNN had only 30,000 for its sole top 40 showing. The media from Turkey averaged 113,000 views for its six videos and from Qatar 163,000 for three videos.

Anti-Semitic Clickbate

The European news outlets featured the most anti-Israel and anti-Jewish headlines.

BBC and Euronews featured hatred and killings in their video titles including “Jerusalem Jewish group’s anti-Arab patrol”, “Jewish settler hate crime in Israel increasingly targets Christians”, “Israeli troops kill Palestinian on the Gaza border” and “Israeli troops kill Palestinian on the Gaza border.” The headlines made Jews haters and killers.

There was no equivalent for Arabs or Muslims. France24 ran with “Israelis take to streets to support Palestinian state,” making the case for an Arab state, in a search result about hating Palestine. This result was an inversion of what the viewer requested.

Euronews video entitled “Jewish settler hate crime in Israel increasingly targets Christians”

The search results on YouTube for “I hate Israel” and “I hate Palestinians” come from different sources, with the greatest number being produced in the Muslim world and the greatest viewership coming from the online world. The European countries pushed the most anti-Israel and anti-Jewish headlines, and overall, YouTube pushed a very lopsided anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian narrative.

Online, the conflict isn’t complex; it is clear that the Jews are the problem.

It is unclear if this disturbing situation stems from YouTube algorithms, viewer choice / bots to promote certain videos, or the quantity of videos being produced by media outlets with an anti-Israel bias. What is certain is the need for a change.

Hamas Charter, Articles 25 through 27

Posted on May 26, 2020 by First.One.Through

The Hamas Charter is similar yet distinct from the various other Palestinian groups dedicated to “the liberation of Palestine.” Articles twenty-five through twenty-seven address this.

B. Nationalist Movements in the Palestinian Arena:

Article Twenty-Five:

The Islamic Resistance Movement respects these movements and appreciates their circumstances and the conditions surrounding and affecting them. It encourages them as long as they do not give their allegiance to the Communist East or the Crusading West. It confirms to all those who are integrated in it, or sympathetic towards it, that the Islamic Resistance Movement is a fighting movement that has a moral and enlightened look of life and the way it should cooperate with the other (movements). It detests opportunism and desires only the good of people, individuals and groups alike. It does not seek material gains, personal fame, nor does it look for a reward from others. It works with its own resources and whatever is at its disposal “and prepare for them whatever force you can”, for the fulfilment of the duty, and the earning of Allah’s favour. It has no other desire than that.

The Movement assures all the nationalist trends operating in the Palestinian arena for the liberation of Palestine, that it is there for their support and assistance. It will never be more than that, both in words and deeds, now and in the future. It is there to bring together and not to divide, to preserve and not to squander, to unify and not to throw asunder. It evaluates every good word, sincere effort and good offices. It closes the door in the face of side disagreements and does not lend an ear to rumours and slanders, while at the same time fully realising the right for self-defence.

Anything contrary or contradictory to these trends, is a lie disseminated by enemies or their lackeys for the purpose of sowing confusion, disrupting the ranks and occupy them with side issues.

“O true believers, if a wicked man come unto you with a tale, inquire strictly into the truth thereof; lest ye hurt people through ignorance, and afterwards repent of what ye have done.” (The Inner Apartments – verse 6).

Article Twenty-Six:

In viewing the Palestinian nationalist movements that give allegiance neither to the East nor the West, in this positive way, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not refrain from discussing new situations on the regional or international levels where the Palestinian question is concerned. It does that in such an objective manner revealing the extent of how much it is in harmony or contradiction with the national interests in the light of the Islamic point of view.

C. The Palestinian Liberation Organization:

Article Twenty-Seven:

The Palestinian Liberation Organization is the closest to the heart of the Islamic Resistance Movement. It contains the father and the brother, the next of kin and the friend. The Moslem does not estrange himself from his father, brother, next of kin or friend. Our homeland is one, our situation is one, our fate is one and the enemy is a joint enemy to all of us.

Because of the situations surrounding the formation of the Organization, of the ideological confusion prevailing in the Arab world as a result of the ideological invasion under whose influence the Arab world has fallen since the defeat of the Crusaders and which was, and still is, intensified through orientalists, missionaries and imperialists, the Organization adopted the idea of the secular state. And that it how we view it.

Secularism completely contradicts religious ideology. Attitudes, conduct and decisions stem from ideologies.

That is why, with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization – and what it can develop into – and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.

“Who will be adverse to the religion of Abraham, but he whose mind is infatuated? (The Cow – verse 130).

The day The Palestinian Liberation Organization adopts Islam as its way of life, we will become its soldiers, and fuel for its fire that will burn the enemies.

Until such a day, and we pray to Allah that it will be soon, the Islamic Resistance Movement’s stand towards the PLO is that of the son towards his father, the brother towards his brother, and the relative to relative, suffers his pain and supports him in confronting the enemies, wishing him to be wise and well-guided.

“Stand by your brother, for he who is brotherless is like the fighter who goes to battle without arms. One’s cousin is the wing one flies with – could the bird fly without wings?”

HAMAS considers the Palestinian Liberation Organization a “brother” with “a joint enemy [Zionists]” but one that has been corrupted by an “ideological invasion” from “orientalists, missionaries and imperialists,” meaning the “Communist East” and “the Crusading West.” Hamas will fight alongside the PLO to destroy Israel but seeks a Palestine that is run by sharia and not a secular state. “The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.”

Al-Mujamma Al-Islami is the Islamic society founded in 1973 by the spiritual founder of Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin. It runs the “da’wah,” the local civilian institutions, which support the population in matters of social welfare, health and education. It preaches radical Islamic teachings in its mosques and schools, including incitement to terrorism and hatred for Israel and Jews. It actively pursues a jihad inside of Gaza, meant to rid society of secular teachings and anything counter to Islam (drugs, pornography, inappropriate dress, etc.)

The leaders of al-Mujamma ultimately became the heads of Hamas at its founding during the First Intifada in 1987. Its mosques and schools became the prime recruiting centers for Hamas terrorists and this branch of the Muslim Brotherhood rapidly grew in size and power. By 2007, as Hamas took over complete control of Gaza, the once independent Islamic organization naturally stood as a central pillar of the government’s civilian services and offers a vision of Hamas’s Palestine.

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.

School in Gaza teaching children to hate Jews, operated by Al-Mujamma Al-Islami (photo By Justin Sullivan for the Chronicle).

Related First One Through articles:

Palestinians of Today and the Holocaust

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

The 1967 War Created Both the “West Bank” and the Notion of a Palestinian State

Posted on May 24, 2020 by First.One.Through

The area east of the Armistice Lines struck between Israel and Jordan in 1949 is commonly referred to as the “West Bank.” It only got that moniker after Israel took the area in June 1967.

Timeline to Naming the “West Bank”

After Israel’s war of Independence in 1948-9, the United Nations did not have a specific name for that region.

When Jordan annexed the area on April 24, 1950, only the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan recognized Jordan’s actions while the rest of the world rejected it. After that time, during the years 1950 through 1958, the United Nations used various terms for that area which were tied to either Jordan or the Jordan River:

“west bank of the river in Arab Palestine” (1951)
“the area west of the Jordan River” (1952)
“West Jordan” (1950, 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958)
“the western bank” (1952)
“Western Jordan” (1951, 1952)
“that part of Jordan west of the Jordan River” (1956)
“west bank of the Jordan” (1957)

Then, in 1959, the United Nations seemed to embrace the Jordanian annexation, referring to the area simply as “Jordan,” no different than the eastern part of the kingdom. To the extent that the UN wanted to specifically call out that area it used wordy terms:

“Jordan side of the armistice demarcation line”
“frontier villagers in Jordan”

That all changed after Jordan attacked Israel in June 1967 and lost the region. By the end of that month, the United Nations quickly moved to shorthand (A/6713) by the third mention:

“the West Bank of the Jordan”
“West Bank area of the Jordan”
“West Bank”

This shortened version for that area east of the 1949 Armistice Line has stuck since that time.

The “West Bank”

Jordan	Israel
Seized the land in an offensive war against Israel in 1949	Took the land in a defensive war against Jordan in 1967
Annexed the land within a year	Only annexed eastern Jerusalem thirteen years later
Only three countries recognized the annexation	For fifty years, no country recognized the reunification of Jerusalem until the United States in December 2017
No country suggested boycotting Jordan for its illegal annexation	Several countries have boycotted Israel since its re-establishment in 1948, even before taking eastern Jerusalem and the “West Bank”
Jordan expelled all Jews from the area, including the Old City of Jerusalem	Israel did not expel anyone; many Palestinians who had taken Jordanian citizenship moved to Jordan
Jordan granted Arabs but not Jews citizenship within four years of annexation	Israel immediately gave all people in Jerusalem – Arab and Jew alike – the option to apply for citizenship
The UN ultimately referred to the area as part of Jordan	The UN to this day uses the term “East Jerusalem” even though such entity only existed between 1949 and 1967 as an artifice of war
The UN never called the region “West Bank”	The UN only calls it the “West Bank” and “East Jerusalem”
The UN never called it “occupied Palestinian territory”	The UN only calls it “Occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem”

The United Nations applied a complete double standard to the “West Bank” and eastern Jerusalem when controlled by Jordan and then by Israel.

Timeline to Recommending Distinct Palestinian State

The United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of independent Jewish and Arab states in November 1947. Many countries recognized the enlarged frontiers of Israel’s border after it accumulated more land at the end of its war of independence of 1948-9.

United Nations proposed borders for the Jewish State in 1947 were much smaller than countries ultimately recognized two years later (inset map)

For eighteen years from 1949 to 1967, the United Nations considered Palestinian refugees living in the “West Bank” of Jordan as temporary residents who were waiting to move back to homes in Israel and take on Israeli citizenship. Together with their fellow Arab neighbors in the “West Bank” who were not refugees, they all took on Jordanian citizenship in 1954. For the United Nations, there was no plan for a Palestinian state until 1967; there were Palestinian Arab refugees who were to become Israelis and there were Jordanians (those who had lived in the “West Bank” before Israel’s war of independence.) The self-determination of the local Arabs was manifest in Jordan and the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization fought that narrative. The PLO’s founding charter in 1964 sought to create a new Arab State of Palestine in the ENTIRETY of the British Mandate, and to eradicate the Zionist state. It was not a two-state solution, but the same zero Jewish state solution which remained the consistent goal in the Arab world.

Only when Egyptian President Anwar Sadat came to Israel in 1977 to forge peace was the notion of two states considered a reality anywhere in the Arab world. In his speech he called for:

“Ending the occupation of the Arab territories occupied in 1967. [Note: Egypt lost the Sinai Peninsula in 1967 and wanted it back]
Achievement of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination, including their right to establish their own state.
The right of all states in the area to live in peace within their boundaries, their secure boundaries, which will be secured and guaranteed through procedures to be agreed upon, which will provide appropriate security to international boundaries in addition to appropriate international guarantees.”

The United Nations began to consider an independent Palestinian State in 1967 and the Arab world began to consider a Jewish State in 1977. The Jordanians gave up claim to the “West Bank” in 1988 and Palestinians slowly came to recognize Israel in the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995.

The move towards a “two-state solution” began to unravel with the Palestinian Second Intifada from September 2000 to February 2005, followed by the election of the terrorist group Hamas to the majority of the Palestinian parliament in 2006 and their subsequent takeover of Gaza in 2007. When the Palestinian Authority sought to enter a unity government with Hamas in 2014, the U.S.-brokered peace talks officially collapsed.

As we approach the 53rd anniversary of the 1967 war and consider Israel’s possible application of sovereignty to parts of Area C in the West Bank which are officially under full Israeli control according to the Oslo Accords signed by the Palestinians, it is worth noting that the world has already accepted Israel expanding its borders in a defensive war in 1949 and did not even consider the need for another Arab state in the region until 1967. There are many pathways to local Arab self-determination, and currently proposed initiatives do not terminate that aspiration.

Related First One Through articles:

When You Understand Israel’s May 1948 Borders, You Understand There is No “Occupation”

Jordan’s King Abdullah II Fights to Retain His Throne

Maybe Truman Should Not Have Recognized Israel

“Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”

Recognition of Acquiring Disputed Land in a Defensive War

The Peace Proposal Monologues

A Response to Rashid Khalidi’s Distortions on the Balfour Declaration

I call BS: You Never Recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

Arabs in Jerusalem

The Green Line Through Jerusalem

Posted on May 22, 2020 by First.One.Through

When the United Nations considered dividing Israel into an Arab State and a Jewish State in 1947, it sought to remove the contentious religious sites sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims into a distinct “corpus separatum” which would be under international control. The area of Greater Jerusalem and Greater Bethlehem was to become a “Holy Basin,” and a unique model from the nascent United Nations.

The Arabs rejected partition and five Arab armies invaded Israel. At wars end in 1949, armistice lines with Egypt, Syria and Jordan created new boundaries in the region. Jordan took control and soon annexed the area it seized, including three-quarters of the Holy Basin. The division for the Jordanian frontiers were marked in green and it became known as the “Green Line.”

The division of Jerusalem in the 1949 Armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan

The Israeli portion of the map was marked in blue and Israel applied sovereignty up to that line. The space between the blue and green lines was considered “no man’s land.”

The Jordanian side included the entirety of the Old City of Jerusalem. The line ran right along the western side of the city, including the Jaffa and New Gates up to the Damascus Gate. The Jordanians forbade Jews from living in, visiting or praying at their holy sites in the city.

The map above is from the United Nations and marks the city’s sacred locations. Note that even though the city is only considered the holiest for Jews, the Jewish locations are listed last. The holiest location, the Jewish Temple Mount, is not even marked as sacred to Jews. The Western Wall is marked as holy – to both Jews and Muslims.

The map lists the Christian holy places first and includes numerous locations including each station of the Cross. It lists but does not show the various sacred spots in Bethlehem.
Muslims have the fewest holy sites of the three monotheistic religions, but occupy the dominant platform of Jerusalem. Uniquely among the monotheistic faiths, Muslims have no sites subject to “the status quo” according to the map.

The only holy location on the Israeli side of the lines is the Tomb of David, curiously listed as the only site holy to all three religions.

The world’s vision of Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967 was a place dominated by Christianity in terms of reverence, by Muslims in regards to prominence, and lastly by Jews, whose holiest spot was not even acknowledged and their basic human rights to live and worship were ignored.

Jerusalem Day is a day to mark the upending of that dynamic, at least in part.

For The New York Times, “From the River to the Sea” Is The Chant of Jewish and Christian Zealots

Posted on May 21, 2020 by First.One.Through

There has rarely been a pro-Palestinian march around the world without the chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.” It is a chant for the destruction of the only Jewish State.

Pro-Palestinian protest in London

One sees the phrase on placards in Europe. One hears it in the streets of the United States.

It is the official charter of HAMAS, a terrorist organization and an official Palestinian political party, the ruling authority of Gaza.

The destruction of Israel has long been the desire of its neighbors since the state was re-established in 1948, prompting five Arab armies to invade the country to destroy it. Through wars, boycotts and terrorism, the craving has persisted in much of the Muslim world.

Yet the liberal media has decided to ignore the genocidal antisemitic intent of the chant. In Europe, the slogan is considered a pro-Palestinian anthem which has nothing to do with the destruction of Israel. In the United States, The New York Times is loathe to call any actions or comments by the Palestinians or their supporters as antisemitic.

So as Israel considers breaking the impasse in the region in which the Palestinian Authority refuses to negotiate with Israel and Hamas continues to attack Israel, it is remarkable to see The New York Times suddenly address the call “from the river to the sea” as a right-wing ISRAELI message.

On May 20, 2020, the paper published an article about acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas calling to cancel security agreements with Israel because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for applying sovereignty to areas of the West Bank which were acknowledged by the PA to be under full-Israeli control in the 1995 Oslo Accords. The article wrote:

“With the peace talks non-existent for years, many right-wing Israelis have urged Mr. Netanyahu to extend sovereignty over the West Bank on ideological and religious grounds, believing the Jewish state should control the entire Holy Land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Evangelical Christians who are key supporters of President Trump have also backed the effort.”

The article failed to mention that the Israeli government gave much of the “West Bank” to the Palestinians in 1995 and 1997 despite repeated terrorist attacks. It did not mention that Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians in 2005. The paper did not refer to the April 14, 2004 letter from US President George W Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which stated clearly:

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, 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, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

Instead, the anti-Zionist paper called the application of sovereignty a move by religious radicals, not people who seek a secure Jewish State and an end to the stalemate.

The New York Times has been an apologist for radical Palestinian antisemitism for years. It has now re-branded the anti-Zionist chant “from the river to the sea” as a Zionist one, and newly cast it as the mantra of Jewish and Christian religious zealots.

First One Through

Israel Analysis. We primaried Bowman!

Author Archives: First.One.Through

Will A Reliable Pro-Israel Congressional Seat Flip?

BLM: Truth, Relevance and Association

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

Schrodinger’s Cat and Oslo’s Egg

Africans in Minnesota

YouTube Enhances Hatred of Israel and Extinguishes Hate for Palestinians