Mike Bloomberg, Where #NeverTrump Meets #NeverBernie

Posted on February 25, 2020 by First.One.Through

It was a mild January evening in Westchester County, New York, and a number of people assembled in a private home to consider promoting the former mayor from New York City, Michael Bloomberg, to become the Democratic candidate for president.

The Democrat Party already had an over-supply of people running for president but people in this liberal enclave were concerned that none of them could defeat Donald Trump. So thirty middle-aged Jews assembled to consider how they could help propel Mike into the coveted role to challenge the president.

A member of Bloomberg’s campaign responsible for bringing out the Jewish vote was already speaking when a Libertarian who had walked away from the Democratic Party and his teenage son joined the presentation. The two grabbed seats and listened.

The audience was clearly liberal and talked about how they wanted anyone but Trump but feared that none of the candidates could actually beat him. Bloomberg’s point man essentially said that Bloomberg gave Jews all of the things they liked about Trump (the strong economy and support of Israel), without any of his terrible policies regarding immigrants, the LGBT community, the environment and a host of other failures. The audience nodded in approval.

Except for the Libertarian.

“I’m not here as an anyone but Trump person. I’m here as an anyone by Sanders or Warren person. Those two will lead this country into a civil war and/or an abyss. If Sanders wins the nomination, not only will I vote for Trump, I will actively campaign and raise funds for him.”

An awkward silence filled the air. The liberals could not fathom a fellow Jew despising a progressive.

The Bloomberg point man broke the tension by asking people to bring up items which were most important to them. A hand sprang up and a 60-year old man yelled “abortion!” Another person said “income inequality.” A third said “gun control.”

The sole teenager in the room offered “addressing the ballooning national debt.” People paused and noted that they appreciated that a young person was concerned about the outrageous debt he was being handed as an inheritance, but one sensed that they were disappointed that he did not say “climate change.”

When the moderator asked about people’s concerns about the mayor, several people talked about his stop-and-frisk policy which seemed racist, and whether the country was interested in voting for a Jewish billionaire. The Libertarian silently took notes and didn’t offer up his concerns, of which there were plenty:

Stop-and-frisk was not a policy designed to attack minorities but one designed against gun ownership. One could call it the Beto O’Rourke “Hell Yes, I’ll Take Your Gun” plan, which narrowly targeting minority neighborhoods in New York City where crime and gun ownership was highest. Will that be Bloomberg’s plan nationwide?
The mayor banned super-sized sodas, in what was called “Nanny-gate.” How many freedoms will this man shut down as president because he thinks he knows better what’s good for you?
He rammed through his third term as mayor, even though there was a two-term limit in New York City. He’s every bit as pompous and egotistical as Trump.

But that night was not about trashing Bloomberg as much as trying to get him off of a slow and cold start.

Bloomberg’s Jewish liaison made a point that Bloomberg was not going to run a campaign focused on attacking his Democratic rivals; he believed that they were already too weak, with the exception of Sanders who Bloomberg felt could never win. But left unsaid was the objection of Bloomberg and the attendees that night to the other moderates running:

Former Vice President Joe Biden is clearly showing his age, and not in a good way. He was famous for putting his foot in his mouth during a long political career, but now nobody thinks he can even find his mouth today. Add his propensity for smelling women’s hair in the #MeToo moment and his son’s sweetheart deal in Ukraine and all realize he has as much of a chance at a return to political office as W Bush.
Pete Buttigieg clearly is a very sharp debater, but everyone knows that vast swathes of the country – including religious and black communities – will not vote for a gay person. Yes it’s 2020, but those are the facts and would you rather acknowledge them or go down with them?
Amy Klobuchar seems to have no truly objectionable traits and could gather broad appeal from moderates in the Democratic and Republican parties. But she may have as much charm as fellow Minnesotan Walter Mondale who was routed in his presidential run.

So enter sandman, Mike Bloomberg, playing Yankee reliever Mariano Rivera in the late innings. Will he save the Democratic Party from embracing the alt-left? Will he do it by ultimately putting his money behind either Klobuchar or Buttigieg, rather than backing himself?

Time will tell.

For now, Bloomberg is the only name which brings #NeverTrumpers and #NeverSanders into the same room.

Related First One Through articles:

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

When the Democrats Opposed the Palestinian “Right of Return”

Farrakhan’s Democrats

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

John McCain 2008 / 2018

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

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

I Love 5-to-4

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

Is Calling Someone a ‘Nazi’ Simply a ‘Poor Choice of Words?’ Ask a Westchester Democrat

Liberal’s Protest Bubble Harms Democracy

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

“Coastal Liberal Latte-sipping Politically-correct Out-of-touch Folks.”

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

If You Want to Take Money out of Politics, Liberal Leaders Suggest Voting for Trump

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Belgium Stuns Before It Kills Jews

Posted on February 23, 2020 by First.One.Through

The annual carnival in Aalst, Belgium will take place today and will likely feature Jews in antisemitic poses as it has in years past. Event organizers were said to have handed out “rabbi kits” with over-sized noses, beards, sidelocks and black hats. Last year’s event featured Orthodox Jews sitting on piles of money which even offended UNESCO (no easy feat) so the organization withdrew the parade from its heritage list.

A parade float at the Aalst Carnival in Belgium featuring caricatures of Orthodox Jews atop money bags, March 3, 2019. (Courtesy of FJO, via JTA)

Aalst Mayor Christoph D’Haese said it is “unavoidable” that Jews will be mocked again this year, saying “we are neither antisemitic nor racist. All those who support this [attack on the parade] are acting in bad faith. Aalst will always remain the capital of mockery and satire.” In other words, stop being so sensitive and enjoy the joke. It’s the larger than life form of French magazine Charlie Hebdo walking down the street. A bit of light fun. A poke. A zinger. It’s not really antisemitic. It’s a light punch in the arm or tweak on the cheek. Shame on you Jews for missing the bigger picture and being offended.

The government of Belgium did not weigh in on the parade. The prime minister, Sophie Wilmes, said it was an “internal affair.”

But the government of Belgium did weigh on another zinger to the Jewish and Muslim community at the end of 2018 when it banned the production of kosher and halal meat.

The government felt that it was inhumane to slaughter an animal while it was conscious, which is required for the production of kosher and halal meats. The government passed a law which went into effect in 2019 that animals be stunned first before killed. That such edict only and directly impacted the Jewish and Muslim communities was considered beside the point. That little zinger to the animal was deemed essential.

The United Nations didn’t weigh in. The world didn’t pause on the cause.

Because for them, animal rights are human rights, just like free speech. If Jews and Muslims are offended, then they must be the parties with the problem.

One sting is a small zinger which makes no difference (free speech) and one which makes all of the difference (animal rights). To Belgians anyway.

Or maybe its actually the opposite; it’s the key to understanding the European approach to antisemitism: a sting makes the slaughter – of Jews or animals – kosher. Antisemitism only exists when it goes for the jugular outright.

Belgian authorities have made clear that the country’s culture demands the stunning of Jews and Muslims, and if they don’t like or appreciate the environment they are free to leave the country.

In 1948, after the Holocaust of the Jews in Europe, there were 34 countries with over 25,000 Jews. Today, there are only 17. Expect that number to drop to 16 very soon, as the Jews of Belgium take flight, as they recognize a desensitized environment better than anyone.

Related First One Through articles:

The “Unclean” Jew in the Crosshairs

Is Antisemitic Graffiti a Hate Crime?

Active and Reactive Provocations: Charlie Hebdo and the Temple Mount

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion – The Musical”

Uncomfortable vs. Dangerous Free Speech

I’m Offended, You’re Dead

I See Dead People

The Antisemitic Youth

The Selfishness, Morality and Effectiveness of Defending Others

To Serve Jews, United Nations Style

Posted on February 17, 2020 by First.One.Through

In 1962, the television show The Twilight Zone aired a show called “To Serve Man.” The show featured aliens arriving at the United Nations in New York City who presented themselves as saviors who would bring forth a new era of peace and prosperity for mankind, ending starvation and wars on Earth. Their proposal was greeted warmly, and their manifesto, “To Serve Man,” was understood as a friendly call to service mankind. Only as humans alighted the alien spacecraft to embark on a mission of bi-planet relations, was it revealed that their manifesto was actually a cookbook and humans were on the alien menu.

The friendly face of the United Nations itself is such an alien creature, whose stated mission to service is limited to its authoritarian masses, while it places Jews and the Jewish State in its cross-hairs for devouring.

The United Nations in New York City

The UN was formed at the end of World War II as an outgrowth of the League of Nations. Its new mission was more aggressive than its predecessor, and sought to ensure human rights and promote coexistence as a reaction to the terrible global war and genocide of Jews. But the years after 1945 witnessed the emergence of dictatorships, monarchies and authoritarian regimes around the world which joined the UN, changing its mission to a distorted notion of human rights and decency.

The sole Jewish State became the most targeted country by the United Nations. The various UN agencies advanced specific standing items which called out Israel. So it was a regular day at the UN when the General Assembly passed a resolution in 1975 that equated the national aspiration of Jews as uniquely detestable, with the Zionism is Racism resolution. It was more of the same when the UN Security Counsel declared in 2016 that no Israeli Jews should be allowed to live east of the 1949 Armistice Lines.

The hunger for Jews continued in February 2020, as the antisemitic UN added to its menu, featuring not only Jews but also companies that service Jews.

A February 12, 2020 report to the UN Office of Human Rights listed 112 companies which are “involved in certain activities relating to settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” A total of 94 companies are Israeli and the balance are headquartered in six other countries including the United States. American companies listed include Expedia, Trip Advisor and Airbnb.

So imagine the following scenario: an Israeli Jew and and Israeli Arab who both live in the Israeli city of Jaffa decide to move to the Old City of Jerusalem. The United Nations brands the Israeli Jew as an illegal settler, but not the Israeli Arab. When each of them decides to rent a room in their apartment on Airbnb, the action of the Jew is considered a grave human rights issue, but not when the Arab uses the Airbnb service.

This backward Taliban mentality has become a core of the UN, as anti-Zionism fervor has characterized the reestablishment of the Jewish State as an appalling injustice which must be righted by serving it up whole to its rightful Arab owners.

In 1945, Jews welcomed the creation of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In theory and in hope, the new world order was designed to protect everyone including Jews who would be guaranteed the right to own property (Article 17) and pray at Judaism’s holy sites (Article 18). At inception, the UN seemed to be an organization meant to service all of mankind, but like an episode of the Twilight Zone, the UN blueprint became a recipe book to devour Jews, the Jewish State and any person or organization who services Jews.

Related First One Through articles:

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan

The Nerve of ‘Judaizing’ Neighborhoods

The New York Times All Out Assault on Jewish Jerusalem

Anti-“Settlements” is Anti-Semitism

The United Nations Bias Between Jews and Palestinians Regarding Property Rights

Google to Stop Displaying Pictures of Israeli Flags in East Jerusalem and West Bank

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

A Review of the Fifteen US Slates for the World Zionist Congress

Posted on February 14, 2020 by First.One.Through

The World Zionist Congress is holding elections through March 11, 2020. There are fifteen slates running from across the political and religious spectrum. They represent roughly 1,800 individual candidates.

In the last election held in 2015, there were eleven slates representing 1,100 candidates. Reform Judaism took the greatest number of votes by a wide margin, surpassing the combined total of the Conservative and Orthodox slates.

2015 World Zionist Election
United States’ Election Results

Slate	Votes	Seats
ARZA – Reform Judaism	21,766	56
Mercaz USA – Conservative Judaism	9,890	25
Vote Torah: Religious Zionists	9,594	24
American Forum for Israel	3,773	10
HATIKVAH: Progressive Zionists	3,148	8
ZOA	2,738	7
Zionist Spring	2,696	7
World Sephardic Organization	1,650	4
Alliance for New Zionist Vision	735	2
Green Israel	443	1
Herut North America	304	1

In this WZC election, one of the 2015 slates – Green Israel – did not run again. Two slates modified their names and there are five new slates including Eretz HaKodesh (#1); Dorshei Torah V’Tziyon (#7); Kol Yisrael (#14) and Shas (#15, which was part of Ohavei Zion in the US).

The full list of slates is as follows (with the ordering / numbering having been chosen by the AZM at random):

As in the past election, the main distinction between the slates mostly breaks down according to religious and political philosophy as portrayed on the graphic below.

Religiously Oriented
From Most Right to Most Left

Shas Olami (#15)
Eretz Hakodesh (#1)
Orthodox Israel Coalition – Mizrachi (#4)
Dorshei Torah V’Tziyon (#7)
MERCAZ USA (#6)
ARZA-Vote Reform (#2)

Politically Orientated
From Most Right to Most Left

ZOA Coalition (#11)
Herut Zionists (#10)
Israel Shelanu (#3)
Hatikvah (#8)

Outside of Religion and Politics

Kol Yisrael (#14)
Americans4Israel (#13)
Vision (#7)

Many of the groups have a philosophy combining both politics and religion, and only a few have tried to stay out of politics and religion at all such as Americans4Israel.

The Jerusalem Program
and the Deserved Disqualification of Hatikvah (#8)

There are not many requirements to vote in the WZC elections. Most are basic criteria such as being Jewish, 18 years old, a permanent resident of the United States and not having voted in the latest Knesset elections. The more affirmative declaration asks people to accept the “Jerusalem Program.”

The Jerusalem Program was first established in Basel, Switzerland at the First Zionist Congress in 1897 and has changed very little since that time. Small modifications were made after significant events in the life of Israel, including modifications in 1951, 1968 and 2004. All modifications were made by consensus.

Key points of the Jerusalem Program highlight the particularity of Israel as the home of the Jewish people. For example:

“Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic society…”
“Ensuring the future and distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education…”
“… representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people…”
“Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism.”

The program clearly focuses on Israel as a Jewish State, not a bi-national state. The focus is on Jews, Judaism and Hebrew, not on Arabs, Islam and Arabic.

Yet one of the slates running for the WZC – Hatikvah (slate #8) – opposes those basic principles. Its members include The New Israel Fund, J Street, T’ruah, Americans for Peace Now. The New Israel Fund is actively trying to promote a bi-national state and tear down the distinctiveness of the Jewish State. J Street lobbied the US’s Obama Administration to enable United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which labeled the Old City of Jerusalem as illegal Occupied Palestinian Territory, the very opposite of settling Jews and strengthening the Jewishness of the country. Leaders of T’ruah loudly came to defense of Linda Sarsour, a vocal anti-Zionist. According to the philosophy of the far-leftist groups of Hatikvah, 11 million Palestinian Arab refugees from across the world – including Israel – should similarly have their own “World Palestinian Congress” to direct Israeli money towards Arab priorities inside of Israel.

While the groups in the Hatikvah slate stated they support the Jerusalem Program to get on the ballot, it has the equivalent honesty of the Pope saying he’s Jewish. It is a Trojan horse to break the very Jewishness of the Jewish State.

Suggested Slates

Competing slates hurt each other as there is a defined number of seats available. Two similar parties might end up losing a seat by dividing their votes, so it makes the most sense for everyone to rally around a single slate within a cluster which best represents their preferences.

Below are suggested slates to improve the probability of your vote having impact. While there are fifteen slates running, only six of them should be given serious consideration.

Right Religiously/ Right Politically: Vote Slate #4, Orthodox Israel Coalition. OIC has a proven ability to get votes. Don’t dilute and divide the focus among Shas Olami (#15) and Eretz Hakodesh (#1).

Right Religiously / Left Politically: Vote Slate #7, Dorshei Torah V’Tziyon. There is no other option.

Non-Religious / Right Politically: Vote Slate #11, ZOA. A proven vote-getter, avoid the smaller Herut (#10) and the niche Sephardic (#9) and Russian (#12) groups.

Non-Religious / Left-Politically: Vote Slate #3, Israel Shelanu. As noted above, Hatikvah (#8) should not be allowed to participate in the WZC as its actions and deeds are counter to the Jerusalem Program. The best platform is therefore with Israeli-Americans.

Non-Religious / No Politics: Vote Slate #14 Kol Yisrael. This group is about countering antisemitism and promoting Israel without getting into the common fights around the role of religion and politics. It’s appeal and mission are broad and inclusive. While Americans4Israel slate #14 has roughly the same mission, the two will dilute each other so people should rally around one. Vision, slate #7 is much the same.

Left Religiously / Left Politically: Vote Slate #6 Mercaz USA. While the ARZA Reform movement has been a dominant slate in the WZC for many years, its leadership has spent too much time bashing the government of Israel publicly and not using its platform to advocate for the Jewish State. Meanwhile, the Mercaz Conservative Movement has been a more constructive progressive voice while also demonstrating its ability to attract voices and advance its agenda.

Whatever your leanings, take the time to vote at zionistelection.org

Related First One Through articles:

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

A Basic Lesson of How to be Supportive

Unity – not Unanimity – in the Pro-Israel Tent

There are Standards for Unity

The Anger from the Zionist Center

The Anti-Israel Community in a Jewish House of Worship

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Facts and Stats about the World Zionist Congress Elections

Posted on February 13, 2020 by First.One.Through

The World Zionist Congress, the organization started by Theodor Herzl in 1897, is having elections again through March 11, 2020.

The organization’s continued existence – let alone the election – is seemingly a curiosity. Why continue an assembly whose mission has already been achieved? The dream of Jewish sovereignty in part of the Jewish homeland was reached in 1948, and throughout Jerusalem in 1967. Is the dream of Zionism still unfulfilled? Does it morph over time?

Or is the WZC simply a manifestation of a collective aspiration, no different than Israel’s national anthem, the Hatikvah, which still speaks of “The Hope” of returning to the land of Zion. Does it remain the country’s national anthem to this day because the hope remains unfulfilled as being free doesn’t end with sovereignty but with true enduring freedom, that the hope is sovereignty that stretches over the entirety of the Jewish homeland, or because one doesn’t stop aspiring to something like love, once already in love?

The Election

The American Zionist Movement is in charge of running the elections in the United States. AZM has been around for 80 years and is an umbrella group of 33 Zionist groups. Its staff includes three full-time people and three consultants.

The election is open to every Jew over 18 years old (as of June 30, 2020). It costs $7.50 to register for the elections, down from the $10 fee in 2015, as AZM is striving to increase voter turnout.

At stake is the direction of roughly $1 billion, which is the collective budgets of the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency, JNF-KKL and Keren Hayesod. Various WZC sub-committees will influence the allocation of resources and policies of those organizations. For example, the international program “Birthright” which brings young Jews for a free trip to Israel might either visit Judea and Samaria or be restricted from visiting it depending on whether right-leaning or left-leaning slates get elected to the WZC.

There are fifteen slates in this 2020 election, representing roughly 1,800 candidates with a wide range of viewpoints. A review of those slates can be found HERE.

The WZC Election by the Numbers

The draw of the WZC appears to have faded over the last few decades, at least in the United States. The 56,450 votes cast in 2015 at the last WZC election, was a paltry sum by historical standards. While WZC elections are supposed to be held every five years, it was not held in 2010. In 2006, a total of 75,686 Americans voted in the elections, a total of 88,753 in 2002, and in 1997 the total was 107,832. If those drops of 18%, 15% and 25% between elections look depressing, consider that the 1987 WZC election had 210,957 Americans voting, meaning that during the eventful decade between 1987 and 1997 – those years which included the First Intifada and the Oslo Accords – American apathy towards Israel doubled, if one could use votes in the WZC as a proxy.

Perhaps it is unfair to state that American Jews were distancing themselves from Israel in the 1987 to 1997 decade. The Oslo Accords were controversial for many, and maybe Americans concluded that the concept of the Israeli government considering the views of American Jews when making policy was either historical or a marketing ploy. Just as the national anthem of Israel, “The Hope,” would appear as a more logical dream for people OUTSIDE of Israel than its inhabitants, the idea of being a “free people in our land, the land of Zion and Jerusalem,” may have held – and holds – different meanings for Israeli and Diaspora Jews: for the former it is a dream of daily peace, while for Diaspora Jews it is an aspiration to bond the Jewish collective of the people, religion and land. Zionism means different things to people around the world, and certainly on a daily practical level for Israelis living in a hostile neighborhood. The Israeli government may care about the opinions of Diaspora Jews, but within limits, and certainly as it relates to daily security.

In regards to the WZC elections, the United States is unique in that it reaches out to its Jews to vote for its representatives. Of the 525 seats in the World Zionist Congress at this election, the United States is allotted 152, or 29% of the seats. Roughly 37% of the seats go to Israel and 34% to the rest of the world based very roughly on the world’s global Jewish population. Israel allocates its seats based on the members of Knesset and the countries of the world allow their major Jewish organizations to directly decide on their representatives.

The WZC voter turnout has been spotty. The United States has eleven states with populations which are over two per cent Jewish. These “Jewish states” did not have great turnouts at the 2015 WZC elections, with fewer than half having one percent of their populations voting. Meanwhile, some smaller states like Oklahoma and Arizona had great turnouts in 2015, with 4.9% and 2.9% of the Jewish populations voting, respectively. As a consequence, the Jews of Oklahoma had a greater impact than the Jews of Oregon, even while the Jewish population was less than one-tenth the size.

2015 World Zionist Election
States with Highest Percentage Jewish Population

State	Per Cent Jewish Population	Per Cent of Jews Voting in WZC
California	3.2%	0.5%
Connecticut	3.3%	0.8%
Washington, D.C.	4.3%	1.6%
Florida	3.3%	0.4%
Illinois	2.3%	1.4%
Massachusetts	4.1%	0.8%
Maryland	4.0%	1.2%
New Jersey	5.9%	1.4%
Nevada	2.7%	0.1%
New York	8.9%	1.0%
Pennsylvania	2.3%	0.7%

The global community got seats according to their Jewish populations. While Israel and the USA got 190 and 145 seats at the 2015 election, respectively, other countries received significantly fewer seats: France (23), Canada (20), England (19), Australia (13) and Argentina and Russia each with 10. There were 25 countries with fewer than ten seats. Some countries received “penalties” from the Zionist Supreme Court which reduced their seats, resulting in Germany and the Netherlands each having no representation.

The political leanings of the various countries’ ruling authorities were clear. France voted 30% of their members to Likud and England 36%, while Australia only allotted 8% of the seats to Likud. Putting the various parties into groupings of Left, Center and Right shows an interesting divide in the Jewish world’s orientation towards their religious and political leanings as shown in the table below:

2015 World Zionist Election
Global Religious and Political Leanings

	Left	Center	Right
Israel	29%	21%	50%
US	61%	5%	34%
ROW	47%	14%	39%

Note: Left consists of Kadima, Mercaz Olami, Zionist Union, Arzenu and Meretz; Center consists of Yesh Atid, Kulanu, Confederation, Over the Rainbow and undefined; Right consists of Likud, Mizrachi, Beiteinu Olami and Ohavei Tzion

Israel is more right-leaning and the United States is much more left-leaning than the rest of the world. Almost no Jews in the US vote for centrist slates, a unique phenomenon.

If you want to have your opinions reflected in the direction of Zionism over the next five years, register and vote at zionistelection.org

The Best Palestinian Response to the Trump Initiative is Welcoming Jews to Palestine

Posted on February 4, 2020 by First.One.Through

US President Donald Trump put forward a new Middle East Framework called “Peace to Prosperity” (P2P). It was the first Middle East framework offered since the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 (API). The API was, not surprisingly, heavily biased towards the Palestinian Arabs’ demands and not Israeli security. It did not advance peace but rather ushered wars from Gaza in 2008, 2012 and 2014, a war from Lebanon in 2006 and a “stabbing intifada” from the West Bank in 2015.

Unlike the API, Trump’s P2P plan was focused on Israel’s security (and Palestinians’ prosperity), and the Palestinian Authority considered it a non-starter before they even saw it. The acting-President of the PA Mahmoud Abbas has refused to even entertain discussing it.

That is a mistake.

The underlying issue of Israel’s security manifests itself in the plan in a few ways, most notably, that all Palestinian border crossings must be managed by Israel and that a future State of Palestine must be demilitarized. If the PA were to refuse to accept those two principles, there is indeed nothing to discuss regarding any of the other key items for Palestinians such as land, refugees and Jerusalem.

However, if Abbas accedes to those two Israeli security points, he will likely be able to gain much on the other issues that matter to him and to the Palestinians.

Consider the land.

The P2P plan has Israel assuming sections of the West Bank including the entirety of the Jordan Valley. It leaves the Palestinian territory as a patchwork of parcels, with the towns in which Jews reside being annexed by Israel dotted, in between.

However, the Palestinians might be able to obtain almost the entirety of the West Bank if it grants Palestinian citizenship to all of the inhabitants of the Jewish towns. This action would be much like the Jewish State’s in 1948 when it granted Israeli citizenship to all of the Arabs. The Jews would make up a much smaller percentage of Palestine than Arabs’ in Israel today.

As the border would be controlled by Israel, only a sliver of land between Palestine and Jordan would be required to be Israeli instead of the whole Jordan Valley, much like the plan assumes Israel having a thin sliver of land buffering Palestinian territory in the Negev and Egypt. The net result would be the Palestinians gaining almost the entirety of the West Bank other than a sliver along the Jordan River.

The willingness to accept Jewish citizens into Palestine might also open a window for Israel to accept many Arab refugees into Israel, rather than just giving them compensation as mapped under the P2P plan. A new Arab spirit of coexistence might stimulate Israel to take as many as 50,000 Arab refugees per year for a number of years, with the balance receiving compensation and settling in a new Palestinian State.

The capital of a Palestinian State could also become more dynamic, with Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem becoming parts of a Palestinian capital.

In short, Palestinians can gain a lot on all of their key negotiating points by working off of the Trump peace initiative if they endorse coexistence and welcome Jews into a new state. In contrast, the current path of continued demonization of Israel and the denial of Jewish history and rights will only further cement the stagnation for Palestinians in regards to both peace and prosperity.

Palestinians should call the Israeli bluff, and see if hundreds of thousands of Jews are willing to live as a minority in Palestine. If the Israelis balk, then the BDS movement will likely advance globally. However, if the Israelis endorse the principle, Israel will be blocked from annexing any land (pro-Arab), while United Nations Resolution 2334 will be deemed moot and the global BDS movement will come to an end (pro-Israel).

Related First One Through articles:

The Palestinian’s Three Denials

The Peace Proposal Monologues

Taking it Straight to the People: Obama and Kushner

The Cancer in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Is Trump Seeing Mid-East Countries to Combat Religious Extremism, or Visiting Religious Sites to Promote Coexistence?

Palestinian Arabs De-Registering from UNRWA

Israel was never a British Colony; Judea and Samaria are not Israeli Colonies

Palestineism is Toxic Racism

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Considering Carter’s 1978 Letter Claiming Settlements Are Illegal

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

American Leaders Always Planned on Israel Absorbing Much of the West Bank

Posted on January 30, 2020 by First.One.Through

The liberal press is counting on people’s terrible memory and fondness for their cherished presidents Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama to convey a false history of the Middle East. It boldly lies that American politicians have always viewed the contours of Israel to be roughly along the 1949 Armistice Lines, commonly referred to as the Green Line and that Israel would uproot its’ civilian population in the West Bank much as it did in Gaza. Consider The New York Times’ article “What’s in a Peace Plan: Settlements and a Goal of a Palestinian State” on January 30, 2020. The article was full of distortions including: “The United States has long voiced support for the creation of a Palestinian state with only slight adjustments to the Israeli boundaries that existed before the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, when Israel wrested the West Bank from Jordan, and Gaza from Egypt.”

The New York Times January 30, 2020 Page A8

That is total nonsense, meant to make Donald Trump’s plan look like a complete break with the past (a past which must be noted never produced a peace deal). To describe reality, read the letter that President George W Bush wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004, after Sharon announced that he was going to withdraw all Israelis from Gaza: “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.” That is the essence of the Trump plan – reflecting the reality of over half a million Israelis living in communities in the West Bank. This position of Israel incorporating Israeli population centers in the West Bank was reflected in the Democratic party as well, until Obama pivoted away from Israel towards the Muslim world in the hope of creating a “new beginning.” Look at the 2008 Democratic platform’s point on Israel: “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” The Democrats-of-old also agreed with the Trump initiative recommendation that Jerusalem remain a unified city and the capital of Israel. The 2008 Democrats stated: “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.” But the current contenders for the president from the Democratic Party (other than Mike Bloomberg) have run from Israel and the notion that Jerusalem should remain the unified capital of Israel. They are the one’s who have turned on long-standing American policy, not Trump. But the liberal media will lie, distort history and tell you #AlternativeFacts like “Israel wrested the West Bank from Jordan” without adding that Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 and Israel took the territory – which Jordan had illegally annexed in 1950 – in a defensive war. The Times article likewise wrote that “[p]revious American proposals spoke of uprooting tens of thousands of Israelis from the settlements to return those areas to Palestinians.” As seen above, that’s a lie. Further, there could be no “return… to Palestinians” as the Israelis would have had to return the land to Jordanians who illegally occupied the land, not Palestinians who never controlled the area. Do not be swayed by the #FakeNews that the Trump peace plan is a radical change of American policy. It just appears that way after eight years of Obama distancing himself from Israel and the current anti-Zionist edge infecting the left-wing media and politicians. Before Obama, Israel truly was a bipartisan cause in which the contours of the Trump peace plan would have been endorsed by all.

Related First One Through articles: When the Democrats Opposed the Palestinian “Right of Return” The Democrats’ Slide on Israel Bernie Sanders is the Worst U.S. Presidential Candidate for Israel Ever Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel? The Peace Proposal Monologues New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism Related First One Through videos: The 1967″Borders” (music by The Kinks) US and Israel Are There For Each Other (music by Michael Jackson) Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Peace Proposal Monologues

Posted on January 29, 2020 by First.One.Through

The Trump administration put forward a new Middle East Peace Plan as the latest installment of a series of frameworks over the years to try to find an enduring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Like every proposal before it, it was declared dead on arrival.

WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 28: U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu participate in a joint statement in the East Room of the White House on January 28, 2020 in Washington, DC. The news conference was held to announce the Trump administration’s plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images/AFP

The Israelis had made numerous direct overtures for peace through the years, from its founding in 1948, post the 1967 war and in 2008, when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert presented a plan that met nearly every desire of the Palestinian Authority. But in the end, the Arabs rejected every Israeli effort to find peace.

So third parties took a stab at putting forward their versions of a workable peace. The last serious attempt was advanced by the Arab League in 2002, known as the Arab Peace Initiative (API) which was advanced by Saudi Arabia. The API, not surprisingly, was heavily biased towards the Palestinian Arabs. The Obama Administration worked off of the API in trying to strike a peace agreement, and secured small adjustments from the Arab League to make it more palatable for Israel to accept, such as the notion of including “comparable and mutual agreed minor swap of the land” in 2013.

But the plan did not meet Israel’s basic security needs, and no peace agreement was advanced, particularly after Hamas’ 2014 war against Israel and the Palestinian Authority fomenting the “stabbing intifada” in 2015.

President Trump, in concert with his pro-Israel advisers including Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, realized that a new paradigm needed to be advanced.

Trump’s team spent years developing a new framework based on a long-term vision for the region, rather than simply trying to get Israel to accept the API which would have left it very vulnerable in a tumultuous region. This new initiative recognized several inherent flaws of the Obama-approved API, including lies which had become mainstreamed, or as US founding father Thomas Paine once 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.”

“East Jerusalem.” There is no place called East Jerusalem any more than there is a place called East Berlin. That name existed for only 18 years of the city’s 4,000 year history and was an artifice of war that ended in 1967.
“Occupied East Jerusalem.” Jerusalem was NEVER slated to be under Arab control in international agreements including the San Remo Agreement, the Mandate of Palestine or the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. To call it “occupied Palestinian territory” is a complete lie.
Refugees. Refugees are people who left a COUNTRY, not a mandate territory or a specific town. To extend the farce of calling for a return of “refugees” when the mandate was later advocated to be split for two peoples is against the very nature of the goal. To continue the charade for several generations entrenches resentment and has long been an obstacle to peaceful coexistence.
“Inalienable rights.” The United Nations has pushed forward the notion that Palestinian Arabs have “inalienable rights” of sovereignty. That would make them the only people with such rights – do Hispanic people who lived in New York City in the 1970’s have inalienable rights to their own country? People only have inalienable rights to self-determination.

Beyond the outright lies which have permeated discourse in the Arab-Israel conflict, there has been a denial of facts:

Return of “territories.” Israel has already complied with UN resolutions to return territories won in the 1967 War: it returned the Sinai to Egypt and handed Gaza to the Palestinians, the first time Palestinians ever had self-rule of a territory.
War from Palestinian territories. Since the Palestinians have ruled Gaza, they launched thousands of rockets into Israeli civilian neighborhoods.
Inability to Compromise. The two Palestinians factions have not even been able to negotiate between themselves, so how realistic can it be that they will ever agree to peace with Israel.
Rights. Only under Israel has there been freedom of access and freedom to worship for all religions, as opposed to the Arabs from 1949 to 1967 which barred Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron.
Growth. The Arab population in the West Bank has grown significantly more than the Arab populations in all of the neighboring countries from 1967 until now, demonstrating the positive and stable environment of Israel for all of its inhabitants.

The Trump peace plan takes reality into account as it seriously addresses the security risks of the region. It is a constructive document to counter-balance the flawed Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, and will hopefully enable the parties to chart a course towards an enduring peace.

Like Eve Ensler’s “The Vagina Monologues” play which included a series of skits meant to address violence against women, the Middle East Peace Monologues now has a new installment to address the violence against and isolation of Israel. The question is whether this latest addition will break the impasse to become a dialogue.

Related First One Through articles:

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

Failing Negotiation 101: The United States

Failing Negotiation 102: Europe

Republicans Do Not Believe There is Any “Occupation”

The Debate About Two States is Between Arabs Themselves and Jews Themselves

Compensation Fund for Palestinian Arabs’ and MENA Jews’ Lost Property

The UN’s #Alternative Facts about the 1967 Six Day War

The Callous-tinian Pause

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

As is their custom, Palestinian Arabs are calling for a “day of rage” because of what might possibly come out of the Trump Administration this week regarding a proposed peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Palestinians had called for a similar day of “mass protests” when the Trump Administration said that Israeli settlements are not inconsistent with the law in November 2019. At that time, various PA officials made statements about their position of a “rejection and condemnation of the Israeli-American settlement enterprise that aims to eliminate the Palestinian cause,” and that they reject “Zionist and American hostile policy… [that are designed to] liquidate the Palestinian cause.”

The Palestinians similarly called for a “day of rage” in March 2018 after Trump moved the US embassy in Israel to its capital city of Jerusalem. Palestinian officials said they “will continue to protest against this decision and the plan to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, as well as attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause.” There were “days of rage” when Israel put metal detectors on Jerusalem’s Jewish Temple Mount after Arabs killed a few people on the holy site.

What is this “Palestinian cause” that is threatened by Jews living alongside Arabs in the West Bank as they do in Israel, and which cannot stand to have the US embassy in Jerusalem? Why do Palestinians hold days of rage when Jews visit the Temple Mount or Israel shows any signs of controlling the site? Why launch this latest “day of rage” before even hearing Trump’s peace plan and stating “[t]he Palestinian leadership, with the support of our people, will fail attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause”?

Do Palestinians believe that they will expel all Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem just as the Jordanians did in 1949? Is the “Palestinian cause” designed to deny Jews their presence, rights and dignity to live, visit and pray at Judaism’s holiest site? Was the Arab happiness about Obama’s endorsement of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 about expunging the history of Jews in Jerusalem and rolling back the “Judaization” of the city?

It would appear that the “Palestinian Cause” has much less to do with the rights of Palestinians than denying the rights of Jews. Its goal is to reintroduce the 18-year ban on Jews which Arabs introduced and enforced during that window of their control of Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967: the “Callous-tinian Pause.”

Jerusalem’s Old City pre-1949, with the Tiferet Yisrael and Hurva Synagogues,
both destroyed by Arab armies.

This Palestinian cause of a Callous-tinian Pause SHOULD be deliberately and specifically liquidated, their calls for days of rage be damned.

Related First One Through articles:

The Arguments over Jerusalem

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Dignity for Israel: Jewish Prayer on the Temple Mount

Considering Carter’s 1978 Letter Claiming Settlements Are Illegal

Palestineism is Toxic Racism

Jizyah for Jews in Jerusalem

Jerusalem’s Old City Is a Religious War for Muslim Arabs

Antisemitism Includes the Denial of Jewish History

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

World leaders gathered in Jerusalem in January 2020 to both remember the Holocaust on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp, and to show unity in a fight against antisemitism.

It is right and proper to not only recall the horrors of the Holocaust but also to recognize that world action can defeat the scourge of antisemitism, if it so desires. It is right and proper to hold the event in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish State of Israel. And it is right and proper to unite against antisemitism, as the attacks on Jews have never dissipated, and have become more common, more violent, and more mainstreamed around the world.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) developed a “working definition of antisemitism” and has been achieving some success in getting countries and institutions around the world adopt its definition. In it, the IHRA focused on Israel and the Holocaust in many examples of antisemitism including comparing Israel to Nazis, saying that Jews and Israel exaggerate the Holocaust, stating that Jews have no right to self-determination and that Israel is a racist endeavor.

These were good examples as were the others listed by IHRA which have existed for centuries including “[m]aking mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” and “[a]ccusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.”

But the IHRA did not mention another form of antisemitism that has gathered momentum in recent years: the open and complete denial of Jewish history.

People do not just deny the Holocaust or twist its history to fit a narrative to benefit a political agenda like the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas. People around the world – including world leaders – are denying the essence of 3,700 years of Jewish history in Israel and around the world.

Denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Israel, the world calls Jews “colonial invaders” stealing land from the “indigenous” Arabs;
Denying that Jews built their two Temples in Jerusalem and that the site is Judaism’s holiest location, the United Nations backs the Arabs’ antisemitic declaration that Jews should be limited access to the site and denied the right to pray there, while the UN only calls the site by its Muslim name;
Denying that Jews made Jerusalem their capital city 3,000 years ago and have been a majority population in the city in excess of either Christians or Muslims since the 1860’s, the United Nations passes resolutions condemning the “Judaization” of the city and others stating that it is illegal for Jews to live there

It is both obvious and correct that denying the Holocaust and using Nazi imagery against Jews and Israel is antisemitic but so is denying the long history of Jews and their rights in the holy land.

Israeli flag at the Kotel (photo: FirstOneThrough)

Limiting the definition of antisemitism narrowly to the Holocaust and Israel ties the two together in a false narrative that the world gave Israel to the Jews as penance for European crimes of antisemitism, which in turn produces more antisemitism, as it strips Jews from their three and one-half millenia history in their holy land, and turns them into invaders and thieves.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Dignity for Israel: Jewish Prayer on the Temple Mount

Names and Narrative: CNN’s Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Complex Inversion

There is No Jewish Temple Mount for The New York Times

The Holocaust Will Not Be Colorized. The Holocaust Will Be Live.

The Ultimate Chutzpah: A New Form of Holocaust Denial

Seeing the Holocaust Through Nakba Eyes

In the Shadow of the Holocaust, The New York Times Fails to Flag Muslim Anti-Semitism

Palestinians of Today and the Holocaust

The Holocaust and the Nakba

Failing to Mention the British White Paper of 1939 when Discussing Refugees

Organized and Disorganized Antisemitism