Libertarian Validation and Absolution

Posted on October 9, 2016 by First.One.Through

Everybody likes to count. Everyone wants to matter.

In the United States, people are raised from childhood believing that their opinions are worthwhile, and that their votes are both sacred and important. Americans are taught that there are many countries which deprive their people of the right to vote, and indeed, that even the US itself deprived many of its own – specifically women and blacks – such right for much of the nation’s history.

So as the presidential election comes just every four years, people contemplate how they will use their special rights in this remarkable country.

Theoretically.

The Shame of the American No Vote

In reality, the United States has a terrible record of showing up to vote. In the 2012 presidential election, even though 8 million more people were eligible to vote than in 2008, 5 million fewer showed up at the voting stations. The 57.5% voting turnout choosing between the incumbent Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney was embarrassing.

Compare that voter turnout to other democracies:

Australia 94%
United Kingdom 72% (2016 EU referendum)
Germany 71%
Canada 68% (2015)

The Pew Research center considered the US voting history weak compared to developed countries according to an August 2016 report. Many Americans do not even register to vote, and many have concluded that the US system of deciding winners based on the electoral college makes the vote in their state meaningless. Consequently, they don’t show up to cast their ballot on election day.

And that was the history in the USA when people were actually excited about the candidates.

The Only Protest: Voting the Libertarian Party

In the 2016 presidential contest, Americans are told that they must choose between a candidate they loathe and a candidate they despise. On the Democratic side, the career politician Hillary Clinton is running on a troubled history as Secretary of State, at a time when people want change in D.C. On the Republican side, Americans are certainly seeing change – every day – from an unpredictable real estate mogul who claims to be able to “make America great again” by making everyone feel bad all of the time.

As described in “Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents,” the two main US political parties continue to shrink every year. Democrats now account for 30% of the electorate and registered Republican are only 26%. Meanwhile, Independents are 43%, significantly more than either of the two so-called major parties.

But the current political process benefits the entrenched, the incumbents, the powerful and the famous. They are the ones who get the media attention, endorsements and center stage. Most Americans have never even heard of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate.

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson

Make no mistake, Johnson is also a flawed candidate. But it doesn’t matter.

He cannot win.

When people think their vote really matters, they do not want to have responsibility for electing a deeply flawed leader. But staying away from the polls in a gesture of protest is no protest at all, despite what George Will claims. It is resignation and retardation to a dishonorable past when people were prohibited from voting.

You pay taxes. Get up and vote!

If someone honestly feels strongly about voting for either Clinton or Trump, by all means, vote for that person; that’s what a free society and elections are all about.

However, if someone despises both candidates – particularly in deeply red or blue states where their vote really doesn’t matter at all – it is extremely important to lodge a protest by voting for the Libertarian party, the only party based on the principles of America’s founding fathers: liberty for all.

Voting for the Libertarian party in 2016 is the only way to simultaneously validate that your vote matters, and absolve you of the responsibility and embarrassment of electing either Clinton or Trump.

If you want change, make it happen. As a famous founding father said:

“Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.“

-Patrick Henry (1736-1799)

Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

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

Goodbye Moon

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

After ten years, the United Nations is finally saying goodbye to its leader, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. Good riddance.

Ban Ki Moon’s tenure as head of the United Nations was riddled with failures. Over the past ten years, he:

oversaw the spread of terrorism globally, including ISIS, al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Al Nusra and Ansar al-Dine to name a few
watched civil wars consume countries and claim over half a million lives in countries including Syria and Yemen
observed a new state join the UN, South Sudan, only to quickly become a failed state
ran an organization with billions of dollars in corruption and kickbacks
did nothing as the UN Human Rights Council only singled out Israel at every turn
encouraged the Palestinian Authority to be recognized as a state by UNESCO, skipping key terms of agreements between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs
promoted the terrorist group Hamas to become part of a united Palestinian government
presided over a United Nations force that was accused of raping the very civilians they were supposed to protect
oversaw the largest refugee crisis since WWII swarm over Europe, as his failures led millions of people to flee the Middle East and North Africa region

Ban Ki Moon’s disgraceful tenure as head of the United Nations may not be completely his fault. The UN has been an anti-Semitic corrupt organization for several decades, dating back at least to Kurt Waldheim, a former Nazi who led the UN from 1972 to 1982, when the UN passed the “Zionism is racism” resolution. Maybe Ban Ki Moon was trying to keep up.

On October 6, 2016, the UN General Assembly was presented with Former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres as the new UNSG. For the past ten years, he headed the UNHCR refugee agency. One hopes that he understands the difference between actual refugees and SAPs, and can lead the world in a new peaceful direction.

It would be a welcome change.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Ban Ki Moon Stands with Gaza

Ban Ki Moon Has No Solidarity with Israel

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

The United Nation’s Ban Ki Moon is Unqualified to Discuss the Question of Palestine

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Henkins

The UN Fails on its Own Measures to address the Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism

The UN is Watering the Seeds of Anti-Jewish Hate Speech for Future Massacres

The Only Religious Extremists for the United Nations are “Jewish Extremists”

The United Nations’ Adoption of Palestinians, Enables It to Only Find Fault With Israel

The UN Can’t Support Israel’s Fight on Terrorism since it Considers Israel the Terrorists

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Itamar and Duma

UN Concern is only for Violence in “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” not Israel

The United Nations “Provocation”

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The New York Times Op-Ed on Jews and the Oslo Accords, 1993

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

Almost 23 years after the Oslo Peace Accord was signed in September 1993, one of its architects and champions, Israeli statesman Shimon Peres, died at 93 years old in Jerusalem, Israel. As detailed in “Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres,” the New York Times chose not to honor the Israeli leader, even as the paper repeatedly calls for a two-state solution for the Israeli-Arab Conflict.

So consider the NYT Op-Ed back on September 17, 1993, just after the Accords were signed and the major opinion makers weighed in on the agreement.

New York Times Op-Ed
September 17, 1993

A.M. Rosenthal (1922-2006)
Winner of the Pulitzer Prize

A.M. Rosenthal wrote about the ‘Holocaust Syndrome“, where he lamented the pessimism coming from “Jews, Israeli and American” about the ultimate outcome of the Oslo agreement. Rosenthal was sad that it was becoming fashionable for Jews to echo sentiments that were most typically heard from Israel’s enemies.

The “Holocaust Theory” advanced a notion from “deep pessimism, fear and defensiveness arising out of the Holocaust. No matter how strong the country [Israel]became, they trusted no one, relied only on arms, saw themselves perpetually as victims who had to act defensively instead of a free people determining their own destiny.”

“To believe the Holocaust syndrome theory is to believe what Israel’s worst enemies say – that it was Israelis who brought a half-century of war between Jew and Arab.”

Rosenthal dismissed that idea completely. He reviewed the history that those “shtetl Jews were ready to share Palestine with Arabs from the beginning. The Arabs refused,” and launched pogroms and wars both from within Israel and without to destroy the Jewish State. Rosenthal had no patience for Jews that were cynical about the chance for peace:

“There is a mental malady that afflicts Israelis and other Jews but it is not the Holocaust syndrome. It is the tendency to confuse hope for the future with present reality….Israelis are not catatonically traumatized, curled up in a defensive ball seeing enemies everywhere. They can get up in the morning, work, raise families, make love, make peace or war, distinguish friend from foe and how to deal with each.”

“Pray for peace but add another prayer for truth upon which it depends.“

Amazing words that resonate today as much as they did when they were written.

Anthony Lewis (1927-2013)
Two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize

Anthony Lewis’s post was called “The Crux of the Deal,” and was optimistic about Oslo. He believed that each party’s self-interest would compel the parties forward.

For Palestinian Arabs, Lewis wrote that Arabs preventing terrorism would lead eventually to “establishing a Palestinian state.” Lewis was too optimistic.

The years after the 1993 Oslo Accords were followed by hundreds of terrorist attacks by Palestinian Arabs, and by the end of the interim Oslo II Accords in 2000, Yasir Arafat (fungus be upon him) rejected the contours of the Palestinian state and launched another war against Israel.

Lewis missed another point: that the Arab-Israel Conflict was key to stability in the Middle East.

Lewis wrote: “Success would be a key to reducing tensions in the entire Middle East, and reducing the threat of the two radical states that have denounced the agreement: Iran and Iraq.” Lewis could not foresee America’s toppling of Iraq – and then abandoning it – and the turmoil that would pour out of Syria, Yemen, Sudan and Libya.

The cause-and-effect theories of Lewis 23 years ago proved completely wrong:

Israel has been able to prosper despite regional turmoil. It has done so by focusing on building businesses and technology surrounded by its strong defenses
It was Palestinian leaders self-interest that has dictated events and marred the prospects of peace, as they enriched themselves, maintained their “lofty” titles and avoided confrontations with fellow Arabs in the cause of peace

Self-interest may indeed be a motivator for all players in the region. However, it would appear that Lewis was too optimistic about Palestinian Arab leadership caring more about their constituents than themselves.

Alexander Schindler (1925-2000)
Leader of the Reform Judaism Movement

Alexander Schindler described himself as “an unreconstructed dove,” in his editorial “Memo to a Hawk.” He relayed how he was worried about Likud leader Menahem Begin coming to power in 1977 and what he would do to the chances of peace. But Schindler gave Begin a chance “and he did not disappoint.” Schindler urged politically conservative Jews to give Yitzhak Rabin and the Oslo Accord that same chance.

Schindler argued that that moment in history – 1993 – was the best time to advance peace in the region:

“It is now that the American Government’s role as guarantor of the peace is unaffected by cold war concerns. It is now that the Arab powers understand that the real threat they face is not the steady achievements of Zionism but the rampaging golem of Islamic fundamentalism. It is now that the influx of Jews to Israel from the former Soviet Union has upset the demographic contest the Palestinians had expected to win.”

Schindler gets an interesting score on predicting the future.

Total Miss: In 2016, the cold war is very much alive and affecting the region, as Russia takes an active role in Syria, with missiles and migrants flowing out of the region unabated.
Spot on: Many people did not appreciate the threat of the “rampaging golem of Islamic fundamentalism” until 9/11/2001, but Schindler did.
Mixed: the demographic time bomb that Yasir Arafat hoped to use to conquer Israel is still believed in some corners, and dismissed in others.

The dreamer of peace believed in the peace process, and understood the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. However he never considered his logic that Islamic fundamentalism existed everywhere else in the Middle East except among Palestinian Arabs.

In 2016, on the eve of the Jewish New Year, world leaders came to pay their respects to a leader of the Israeli people, and a man devoted to the Oslo peace process. As people consider Peres’s legacy over the past 70 years in public service and his persistent optimism that peace would come to the region, review the caution and optimism at the dawn of the peace process launched in Oslo, and where we are today.

For the New York Times, the lack of peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism, the cold war, the influx of Russian Jews, the corrupt Palestinian Arab leadership or the civil wars raging in the region. For the Times and many liberal Jews, it continues to be a hawkish Israeli government that continues to repeat the “Holocaust Syndrome.”

Perhaps it is time for everyone to re-read the prescient words and warning of A.M. Rosenthal: beware the “mental malady that afflicts Israelis and other Jews but it is not the Holocaust syndrome. It is the tendency to confuse hope for the future with present reality….Pray for peace but add another prayer for truth upon which it depends.”

Related First.One.Through articles:

An Inconvenient Truth: Palestinian Polls

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

The Only Precondition for MidEast Peace Talks

“Peace” According to Palestinian “Moderates”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Every Picture Tells a Story: Goodbye Peres

Posted on October 1, 2016 by First.One.Through

The “Every Picture Tells a Story” series has exposed the long history of the New York Times in using its pictures and captions to portray Israelis as militant occupiers and Palestinian Arabs as victims. However, one would imagine that the paper would rally behind one of its heroes: the liberal Israeli statesman and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Shimon Peres. But at the funeral of Peres, the Times once again dismissed the Israeli leader and promoted the Palestinian Arabs.

Consider first the coverage by the conservative newspaper the Wall Street Journal:

Cover of the Wall Street Journal, Saturday October 1, 2016

The top half of the front page contained three pictures from the funeral of Shimon Peres, two of which portrayed the Israeli flag-draped coffin of the esteemed leader. The pictures were of: the honor guard carrying the coffin of Peres; Israeli Prime Minister shaking hands and welcoming acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; and US President Barack Obama with a somber expression placing his hand on the coffin.

The caption of the picture read:

“HONORED: Members of a Knesset guard carry the flag-draped coffin of the late Israeli statesman Shimon Peres; Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greets Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas; and President Barack Obama takes a moment.”

The Wall Street Journal led with the word “honored” of the “late Israeli statesman.” It showed world leaders like Obama and Netanyahu considering the Israeli leader. It led the entire collage with a bold header “World Leaders Say Farewell to Israel’s ‘Biggest Dreamer.‘”

A respectful farewell by the paper indeed.

Contrast that with the New York Times picture and caption.

Cover page of New York Times October 1, 2016

On the bottom half of the front page was a single picture. It featured no Israeli flags. It did have Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu or US President Obama.

It featured Mahmoud Abbas, front-and-center.

The caption read:

“Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, center, at the funeral of Shimon Peres on Friday.”

Not only did the caption pay no homage to Peres, it focused squarely on “the Palestinian president.” But there is no country of Palestine recognized by the United States or Israel. Abbas is simply the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority, whose term expired close to eight years ago.

The title of the article stated: “World Leaders Gather to Mourn Peres, and Possibly His Dream.” Is a reader to infer that Abbas is a world leader? That he’s the president of a country? That Peres ended life as a failure?

It is both remarkable and frightening that a paper that theoretically loved the liberal Israeli leader, would opt to belittle him as their eulogy.

Or perhaps this was yet another declaration of the NYT, that the Jewish State never deserves a tribute.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Every Picture Tells a Story, the Bibi Monster

Every Picture Tells a Story: Versions of Reality

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Every Picture Tells a Story- Whitewashing the World (except Israel)

New York Times’ Lost Pictures and Morality for the Year 2015

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don’t It?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

Posted on September 28, 2016 by First.One.Through

Propaganda has been an important tool in war efforts for centuries. Today, there is a growing consensus to forcefully confront the people and machinery used to promote terror, as much as the effort to eradicate the terrorists themselves.

Nazi Germany

Nazi Germany exterminated millions of civilians that it considered undesirable before and during World War II. Historians have long considered the reasons that so many Germans and other Europeans turned on their fellow citizens, and attributed some of the rationale to an effective Nazi propaganda machine.

While Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party that led the effort to kill Jews, Gypsies and others, it was his propaganda specialist, Joseph Goebbels, who spearheaded the effort to coopt all Germans and other Europeans to despise and turn in those targeted by the Nazis. Goebbels’ efforts to rally Germans against Jews included actions to make Germans appear as victims after WWI, and to portray Jews as sub-humans that undermined the purity of Aryans. His depictions of Jews in advertisements and film helped deceive the public and sway opinion against the Jews.

Goebbels never stood trial for his actions, as he committed suicide at the end of the war.

ISIS

Today, the Islamic State / ISIS is considered the most lethal terrorist organization that kills thousands in the Middle East. It has made and released many videos showing its barbarity which it uses to recruit soldiers from around the world.

US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton voiced her concern about the terrorist threat from ISIS in several debates, including its online propaganda:

“We also have to do a better job combating ISIS online, where they recruit, where they radicalize. And I don’t think we’re doing as much as we can. We need to work with Silicon Valley. We need to work with our experts in our government. We have got to disrupt, we have got to take them on in the arena of ideas that, unfortunately, pollute and capture the minds of vulnerable people. So we need to wage this war against ISIS from the air, on the ground, and online, in cyberspace.”
September 7, 2016

Those Clinton comments seemed like an online fight: a battle fought on the internet against an online threat.

However, in her comments during the September 26, 2016 debate, Clinton seemed to increase her threat against those involved in making the evil propaganda:

“And I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership. I was involved in a number of efforts to take out Al Qaida leadership when I was secretary of state, including, of course, taking out bin Laden. And I think we need to go after Baghdadi, as well, make that one of our organizing principles. Because we’ve got to defeat ISIS, and we’ve got to do everything we can to disrupt their propaganda efforts online.”

Those comments seemed to convey Clinton’s desire to physically attack those members of ISIS that produce the propaganda. She coupled the assassination of terrorists with the online battle. That was a major ratcheting up of the fight against terrorist propaganda by a politician.

For their part, civilians have taken to the courts to block the spread of terrorist propaganda online. January 2016 saw a suit against Twitter, and in June 2016, Facebook and Google were also sued for airing ISIS videos. These online forums had nothing to do with producing or posting the videos, but were attacked for not taking down the propaganda, thereby allowing the evil messages to spread globally.

The incitement to violence and terrorism is also found in many places beyond social media and Iraq.

Palestinian Arabs

In between the first two presidential debates, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly. In his remarks, he noted the disgraceful incitement to terrorism and anti-semitism prevalent in Palestinian Arab society:

“Now here’s the tragedy, because, see, the Palestinians are not only trapped in the past, their leaders are poisoning the future.

I want you to imagine a day in the life of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy, I’ll call him Ali. Ali wakes up before school, he goes to practice with a soccer team named after Dalal Mughrabi, a Palestinian terrorist responsible for the murder of a busload of 37 Israelis. At school, Ali attends an event sponsored by the Palestinian Ministry of Education honoring Baha Alyan, who last year murdered three Israeli civilians. On his walk home, Ali looks up at a towering statue erected just a few weeks ago by the Palestinian Authority to honor Abu Sukar, who detonated a bomb in the center of Jerusalem, killing 15 Israelis.

When Ali gets home, he turns on the TV and sees an interview with a senior Palestinian official, Jibril Rajoub, who says that if he had a nuclear bomb, he’d detonate it over Israel that very day. Ali then turns on the radio and he hears President Abbas’s adviser, Sultan Abu al-Einein, urging Palestinians, here’s a quote, “to slit the throats of Israelis wherever you find them.” Ali checks his Facebook and he sees a recent post by President Abbas’s Fatah Party calling the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics a “heroic act”. On YouTube, Ali watches a clip of President Abbas himself saying, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.” Direct quote.

Over dinner, Ali asks his mother what would happen if he killed a Jew and went to an Israeli prison? Here’s what she tells him. She tells him he’d be paid thousands of dollars each month by the Palestinian Authority. In fact, she tells him, the more Jews he would kill, the more money he’d get. Oh, and when he gets out of prison, Ali would be guaranteed a job with the Palestinian Authority.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All this is real. It happens every day, all the time. Sadly, Ali represents hundreds of thousands of Palestinian children who are indoctrinated with hate every moment, every hour.

This is child abuse.

Imagine your child undergoing this brainwashing. Imagine what it takes for a young boy or girl to break free out of this culture of hate. Some do but far too many don’t. How can any of us expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds against peace?”

The Palestinian Authority and much of the society is rife with terrorist propaganda.

Did the world listen to Netanyahu’s speech, fact-check his statements and call out the Palestinian Arab vile anti-Semitism and propaganda?

No. It parroted the Palestinian Arab argument about settlements, “The Quartet emphasized its strong opposition to ongoing settlement activity, which is an obstacle to peace, and expressed its grave concern that the acceleration of settlement construction and expansion … (is) steadily eroding the viability of the two-state solution.” Nothing about Arab propaganda being an obstacle to peace.

Hateful propaganda leads directly to violence and terrorism. Depending where that propaganda is posted, that message can spread like wildfire globally.

In parts of the world, there are leaders that are willing to step up and fight against the poisonous contagion. Regretfully, not at the United Nations, where its leader, Ban Ki Moon, actively promotes that the terrorist group Hamas should become part of the governing Palestinian Authority.

Perhaps it is time for people to sue the United Nations – just as people are suing Facebook and Twitter – in giving a platform and pass to Palestinian Arab anti-Semitic propaganda.

Related First.One.Through articles:

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

The UN Fails on its Own Measures to address the Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism

Palestinians of Today and the Holocaust

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

The UN Can’t Support Israel’s Fight on Terrorism since it Considers Israel the Terrorists

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Obama’s “Palestinian Land”

Posted on September 21, 2016 by First.One.Through

On September 20, 2016, US President Barack Obama spoke at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. His passing comment on Palestinian Arab-Israel conflict underscored why peace did not advance, and his relationship with Israel worsened over his term.

US President Barack Obama addressing the United Nations
September 20, 2016

Obama’s UN remarks covered a lot of activities during his eight years in office, including the Iranian nuclear deal; opening relations with Cuba; and tackling climate change. He spoke about the Arab-Israeli conflict very briefly, but the remark was telling:

“…surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land. We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others.”

“Palestinian land.” What exactly is Palestinian land, according to the parties themselves? According to the United States? According to Obama?

Oslo Agreements

Since 1993, successive US governments have stood behind the Oslo Accords signed by both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Israel, and its successor document, Oslo II signed in 1995. That document was the last agreement signed by the two parties to settle the “Question of Palestine.”

Oslo II clearly spelled out what was “Palestinian land” to be fully governed by the Palestinian Authority in regards to military and civil administration. That area is known as “Area A” in EGL (east of the Green Line) and the Gaza Strip. Israel handed over all of that land to the Palestinians over a decade ago.

“Area B” in EGL/west bank of the Jordan River, is a mixed territory, in which the Palestinian Authority has responsibilities for civil matters, and military matters are coordinated jointly. That land is neither “Palestinian Authority” nor “Israeli” exclusively.

“Area C” makes up the majority of EGL, and is “Israeli Territory,” in which Israel administers all matters, including civil and security responsibilities.

Map showing Areas A, B and C, east of the Green Line

The Israelis and Palestinians negotiated and agreed to the contours of these three blocks. The parties also worked on a plan for additional land to be transferred from “Israeli Territory” to “Palestinian Authority Territory” over the years 1995 to 2000. However, Yasser Arafat (fungus be upon him) rejected those negotiations at the last moment, and launched the Second Intifada in September 2000, as the interim Oslo II Accord was due to become permanent. As such, no additional transfer from Israeli Territory to Palestinian Authority Territory has occurred.

As every US administration has pushed for the two parties to negotiate a two-state agreement on the basis of the Oslo Accords, there is NO BASIS for Obama to refer to Area C as “Palestinian Land.” That land will continue to be Israeli land until such time as they agree to transfer parts of it to the PA.

As there is no Israeli “occupation” or “settlement” activity in the Israeli territory of Area C, Obama’s mischaracterization of Israeli actions in that land that they legally administer explains his comments and treatment of Israel since he took office in 2009.

Mandate of Palestine

It is also worth noting that international law, established in the 1920 San Remo agreement and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine, specifically gave Jews the legal rights to live and settle throughout Judea and Samaria (the entity known as EGL/West Bank did not even exist when five Arab armies illegally attacked Israel (1948-9) and Jordan annexed the region in 1950.)

The Palestine Mandate stated:

“secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion” (Article 1) Jews were to have full civil rights throughout Palestine, such as buying and building homes.

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.” (Article 5) which Britain did anyway when it separated the east bank of the Jordan River to the Hashemite Kingdom, but which wasn’t a foreign power.

“The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.” (Article 6) specifically stating that Jews were to settle throughout Palestine, including lands that Obama believes Jews “occupy”.

“The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.” (Article 7) in which Jews do not only move and settle the land, but become citizens of the country if they live ANYWHERE in the land, including Judea and Samaria.

“No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.” (Article 15) clearly states that no person should be barred from living anywhere in the land just because they are Jewish – as if human rights law wasn’t enough.

International law – and human rights law – clearly allow Jews to live throughout EGL/the West Bank. The Oslo Accords signed between the parties specifically state that Israel controls all of Area C until such time as the parties negotiate the transfer of more lands.

The notion that Jews living in houses that they have every legal and moral right to live in, is somehow connected to Obama’s belief of a “permanent occupation of Palestinian land” is false, misleading and arguably anti-Semitic on every level.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Palestinians agree that Israel rules all of Jerusalem, but the World Treats the City as Divided

The Illogic of Land Swaps

The Legal Israeli Settlements

Names and Narrative: Palestinian Territories/ Israeli Territories

Names and Narrative: The West Bank / Judea and Samaria

The Left-Wing’s Two State Solution: 1.5 States for Arabs, 0.5 for Jews

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

New York Times’ Tales of Israeli Messianic War-Mongering

The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues

Recognition of Acquiring Disputed Land in a Defensive War

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Hillary Clinton Wants Muslim Americans to Squeal on Each Other

Posted on September 20, 2016 by First.One.Through

On September 18, 2016, a Somali-American Muslim man went on a rampage and stabbed nine people in Minnesota, before being shot by an off-duty police officer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, weighed in on the attack.

Clinton’s remarks deliberately misled Americans that she had a tough plan using law enforcement to deal with terrorism.

Her statement read:

“ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack in Minnesota, and this should steel our resolve to protect our country and defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups. I have laid out a comprehensive plan to do that. This includes launching an intelligence surge to help identify and thwart attacks before they can be carried out, and to spot lone wolf attackers.”

A casual reader would imagine that Hillary is planning on relying on a range of security personnel in an “intelligence surge” to protect Americans from local radical jihadists.

They would be wrong.

Hillary Clinton addressing reporters September 16, 2016

On December 15, 2015, Hillary Clinton was in Minnesota where she discussed her detailed plan to thwart ISIS in America. Her three-part plan included an effort to prevent attacks before they could be carried out, which was based on Muslim Americans reporting on fellow Muslims who were becoming radicalized.

“Here in the Twin Cities, you have an innovative partnership that brings together parents, teachers, imams, and others in the Somali-American community with law enforcement, non-profits, local businesses, mental health professionals and others to intervene with young people who are at risk.

It’s called the Building Community Resilience Pilot Program, and it deserves increased support. It has not gotten the financial resources that it needs to do everything the people involved in it know they can do. And we’ve got to do a better job of supporting it.

Now I know that like many places across the country, there’s more work to do to increase trust between communities and law enforcement. Just last month, I know here a young African American man was fatally shot by a police officer. And I understand an investigation is underway. Whatever the outcome, tragedies like this raise hard questions about racial justice in America and put at risk efforts to build the community relationships that help keep us safe from crime and from terrorism.

When people see that respect and trust are two-way streets, they’re more likely to work hand-in-hand with law enforcement. One of the mothers of the 10 men recently charged with conspiring with terrorists said, “We have to stop the denial,” she told other parents that. “We have to talk to our kids and work with the FBI.” That’s a message we need to hear from leaders within Muslim-American communities across our country.”

Hillary Clinton’s plan relies on Muslim Americans reporting on fellow Muslim Americans to the police.

As discussed in “Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota,” Donald Trump does not believe that law enforcement can rely on the Muslim American community to squeal on its bad actors. He relies on reports that state the “Islamist terror threat in the U.S. homeland has escalated dramatically,” and summations from fellow Republicans like “Republican Rep. John Kline, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and long a hawkish critic of the Obama administration, said the report proves “homegrown terrorism remains a serious issue in Minnesota.””

Donald Trump’s statement about the Minnesota attack in September 2016 was shorter on details, but more aggressive in stance. Trump did not suggest waiting passively for Muslims to mention possible attacks, he put the onus directly on law enforcement including “extreme vetting for immigrants from troubled parts of the world where terrorists live and train.” He went further to attack Clinton’s approach: “We will not allow political correctness and soft-on-terror, soft-on-crime policies to threaten our security and our lives.”

Therein lies the fundamental difference of the presidential candidates in fighting Islamic terror in the US. Both want to stop terror, but Trump will rely completely on law enforcement, whereas Clinton will seek to empower the Muslim community in the hopes that fewer people will become radicalized and more Muslims will be inclined to report on fellow Muslims.

Many Americans will only be comfortable with one of these approaches.

In September 2016, as the presidential race tightened and a series of attacks occurred in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, Hillary Clinton concluded that she needed to appear more bold on fighting terror, and less reliant on the Muslim community’s cooperation.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Big, Bad Lone Wolves of Terrorism

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

“Jews as a Class”

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

Half Standards: Gun Control and the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants September 2016

Posted on September 19, 2016 by First.One.Through

The United Nations is gathering this week for a summit in New York to discuss ways of helping refugees and migrants. The various roundtables will review the difficult situation facing millions of people due to a number of wars, principally in the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) as well as in Afghanistan.

The UN will then ask for countries of the world – principally the United States and Canada – to contribute money and homes to settle these refugees.

There are three principle flaws with the UN approach:

There are billions of dollars already allocated to refugees at the UN, but not used for them, due to bias at the global body
Key related parties are not taking their share of refugees
The response of stopping the flow of refugees at the source is not properly addressed

The United Nations headquarters in New York City

The UN Wastes the World’s Money on Non-Refugees

The United Nations currently spends billions of dollars that are earmarked for refugees, to people that are NOT refugees.

As described in “Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA and Fund the UNHCR,” the United Nations created the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and tasked it with helping millions of people from around the globe who are fleeing conflict. The UNHCR helps these refugees find safety in new countries and establishes some infrastructure (temporary homes, hospitals and schools), far from their homes, where they have little support.

However, the UN also created a distinct agency, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) just for a single group of people – Palestinian Arabs. These Arabs are NOT refugees, but descendants of people who fled their homes and settled a few miles away in the exact same region. Refugee status does not pass down through the generations, and has absolutely nothing to do with people leaving a certain house to a location nearby.

Despite this, the UN has a larger staff and spends significantly more money on these non-refugees.

As the world is facing a true refugee problem, with actual refugees fleeing harm to find protection in lands where they know no one and have no infrastructure at all, it is well past time to shut down the farce of UNRWA which exists solely to perpetuate the Arab-Israeli Conflict, and devote those resources to actual refugees.

Muslim World Must Take in Refugees

The European Union is pushing the US and Canada to accept more refugees, particularly those fleeing the civil war in Syria. The EU argues that it has already accepted the lion’s share of the refugees, and many Europeans have become uneasy with the large influx of foreigners.

But where is the push for Muslim countries to accept more of these Muslim refugees? Aside from Turkey and Jordan, most Muslim countries have not taken any refugees. These refugees fleeing Arab countries like Sudan, Yemen and Libya, and Muslim countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, could more easily adapt to countries where they share language, culture and religion. The very wealthy Gulf states could easily take in these refugees.

But the 57 Islamic states will vote at the UN to make the non-Islamic countries take in the refugees, to an unfamiliar environment. Why are so many Muslim countries only making refugees and not helping them? Why does the world enable the situation?

Stop the Flow of Refugees

The biggest causes of the refugee crisis is the civil war in Syria and the growth of ISIS in Iraq. Trailing these are the wars in Afghanistan and Libya, the civil war in Yemen, and the failed state of South Sudan. These are problems that erupted and spread under the hands-off approach of the Obama administration in the Middle East, and its active involvement in Afghanistan.

The ramifications have spread to the entire world.

Obama did little to nothing when Syria’s President Assad dropped barrel bombs and chemical weapons on his own people. Obama vacated Iraq to allow a vacuum to be filled by ISIS. After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toppled the regime in Libya, the US left the country in shambles. Those decisions allowed terrorists to penetrate Europe.

It is time to reverse that inaction.

A no-fly zone must be established in Syria to give a safe haven to refugees within their own borders. A real ceasefire must be established to allow the millions of refugees to return to their country.

ISIS must be defeated and the US must remain in Iraq to help the country stabilize. Active involvement in Libya must happen immediately, before Libya becomes another Iraq.

The only country that has become more powerful under Obama is the state sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

The implementation of Obama’s poor decisions must stop, and refugees should be encouraged to return to their countries as soon as practical.

The United Nations Farce

Over September 19 and 20, the world will witness the dictatorships and human rights abusing-countries dictate to the western world that the West must take responsibility for the failed Islamic states. The perpetrators will claim victim status, and insist that Europe and North America must both pay for the MENA refugees and shelter them, while the Muslim world itself does nothing.

Well, in fairness, the Muslim world won’t do nothing; it will dictate its demands.

One of the speakers at the summit will be the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah. Hamdallah is well known to viewers of Palwatch and MEMRI for calling on the Islamic world to attack Israel for chasing the Muslim agitators who curse and throw stones at non-Muslims visitors to the Jewish Temple Mount. He often asserts that Israel is “Judaizing” their holy city of Jerusalem. Most significantly, he actively promotes the families of terrorists killed while attacking Jews, ensuring that they receive monies from global agencies.

Yes, that’s illegal, but Hamdallah gets diplomatic immunity while visiting NY. What a great choice for a speaker!

Another speaker is Pierre Krähenbühl, the Commissioner General of UNRWA, the agency that has waged a multi-decade war against the only democracy in the Middle East. Krähenbühl ignores the role that UNRWA played in storing weapons for Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza. He focuses on asking the world for yet more money for the non-refugees that live in a land that they already control in Gaza!

UNRWA office in Jerusalem
(photo: First.One.Through)

While listening to the sad state of refugees, sympathize with their plight, but don’t be fooled by the UN’s recommended courses of action. Stop the UN farce of perpetuating conflicts and wasting the world’s money, while never demanding accountability from the Islamic countries and entities.

Related First.One.Through articles:

UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

The UN Fails on its Own Measures to address the Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism

A Logical Approach to Immigration from Personal History

The UN is Watering the Seeds of Anti-Jewish Hate Speech for Future Massacres

Cause and Effect: Making Gaza

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

UN’s Confusion on the Legality of Israel’s Blockade of Gaza

A “Viable” Palestinian State

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

Posted on September 16, 2016 by First.One.Through

The United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has never been a huge fan of Israel. He has used his ten years as USGC to condemn Israel and excuse the Palestinian Authority repeatedly. In June of 2016 he opted to stand in the Gaza Strip near the area where jihadist militants fired into Israeli civilian areas and declare that “I stand with the people of Gaza to say that the United Nations will always be with you.”

As he enters the homestretch of his terrible tenure, Ban Ki Moon found a particular remark by a world leader to be beyond comprehension.

It was not the leader of Iran who declared his intension of wiping Israel off of the map.

It was not the leader of Russia who invaded Crimea.

It was not the leader of North Korea testing nuclear weapons.

It was not the leader of Syria that has fought a civil war claiming nearly half a million lives.

Ban Ki Moon did not ignore those actions or comments. He did condemn them. But he also seemed to think they had a certain logic. They were bad, but understandable.

However, there is a world leader who declared something that was beyond his comprehension. Something “outrageous.”

Not surprisingly, Ban Ki Moon focused on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who impolitely pointed out a plain fact: that acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas has insisted on a new state of Palestine in the Jewish biblical homeland to be devoid of Jews.

“I am disturbed by a recent statement by Israel’s Prime Minister portraying those who oppose settlement expansion as supporters of ethnic cleansing. This is unacceptable and outrageous.” Ban Ki Moon, September 15, 2016

There is no denying that Abbas has stated his intentions clearly. It is also true that Ban Ki Moon supports the anti-Semitic request. But to be called out on it by the Israeli leader – using the same language that Abbas uses for Israel – was too much for the USGC to accept.

The UN only sanctions the term “ethnic cleansing” in the Israeli-Arab Conflict, if Arabs use it for Israel.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
September 2016

But can you blame the UN? For centuries the world was comfortable dictating where Jews could live, whether in ghettoes, the Pale of Settlement, or forcible expulsions. Not of the Arabs. Not of Sikhs. Not Blacks. Only Jews.

And for the head of the United Nations to have to listen to the Jewish leader attack his adopted wards, was beyond his ability to cope.

Ban Ki Moon already declared that he stands with Gaza. He has voiced his excitement to see the terrorist group Hamas participate in Palestinian elections. (He also stated that he was shocked to learn that Hamas wanted to kill to Jews, even though its written clearly in its charter and its leaders declare the intentions daily in the media).

And all of that fits in the United Nation’s worldview.

The UN expects Israel to behave badly and condemns it more than Iran, China and Russia combined. But Netanyahu’s comments drove the UNSG beyond disgust to outrage.

What is “outrageous” for the UN, is for the Jewish State to declare that it is through being the only people on the planet that are banned from living in certain lands, let alone their historic homeland that international law specifically gave them. Outrageous that Jews are not be satisfied to live in a fraction of their homeland without rights to their holiest place. Outrageous for Jews to have the temerity to talk truth to power.

Where is your outrage?

Related First.One.Through articles:

The United Nation’s Ban Ki Moon is Unqualified to Discuss the Question of Palestine

The UN Can’t Support Israel’s Fight on Terrorism since it Considers Israel the Terrorists

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

The Only Religious Extremists for the United Nations are “Jewish Extremists”

The UN is Watering the Seeds of Anti-Jewish Hate Speech for Future Massacres

UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews

The UN Fails on its Own Measures to address the Conditions Conducive to the Spread of Terrorism

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

“Ethnic Cleansing” in Israel and the Israeli Territories

Posted on September 12, 2016 by First.One.Through

The term “ethnic cleansing” has been used often in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reactions to the comment are in inverse relation to the truth.

Palestinians Claim
of Israeli “Ethnic Cleansing”

In 2012, the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, stood at the United Nations and claimed that Israel was engaged in “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinian Arabs. At first, he spoke about “ethnic cleansing” when Israel declared independence:

“The Palestinian people, who miraculously recovered from the ashes of Al-Nakba of 1948, which was intended to extinguish their being and to expel them in order to uproot and erase their presence, which was rooted in the depths of their land and depths of history. In those dark days, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were torn from their homes and displaced within and outside of their homeland, thrown from their beautiful, embracing, prosperous country to refugee camps in one of the most dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern history.”

Abbas neglected to say that the Palestinian Arabs left their homes while their fellow Arabs launched an attack on the nascent Jewish State to destroy it completely. The Arabs failed in their genocidal quest. Yet for its part, Israel granted all of the Arabs living in its territory full citizenship. A complete inversion of his claim that Israel “intended to extinguish their [Arab] being and to expel them in order to uproot and erase their presence.”

Abbas continued to claim that Israel was engaged in “ethnic cleansing” to this day:

“We have not heard one word from any Israeli official expressing any sincere concern to save the peace process. On the contrary, our people have witnessed, and continue to witness, an unprecedented intensification of military assaults, the blockade, settlement activities and ethnic cleansing, particularly in Occupied East Jerusalem, and mass arrests, attacks by settlers and other practices by which this Israeli occupation is becoming synonymous with an apartheid system of colonial occupation, which institutionalizes the plague of racism and entrenches hatred and incitement.”

Abbas conveniently neglected to mention the hundreds of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel throughout 2012. He also neglected to mention that Israel left Gaza in 2005, allowing the Palestinian Arabs to rule themselves for the first time in hundreds of years.

No matter. The people at the United Nations gave Abbas a standing ovation.

Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas
addressing the United Nations in 2012

United Nations Claim
of Israeli “Ethnic Cleansing”

In 2014, the “Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories” (yes, that’s an actual title) whose job it is to report on Israelis, declared that Israel was committing “ethnic cleansing” in East Jerusalem.

“The continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem combined with forcible eviction of long residing Palestinians are creating an intolerable situation that can only be described, in its cumulative impact, as a form of ethnic cleansing.”

The facts are the exact opposite: the Arabs in Jerusalem are growing faster than the non-Arab population.

As detailed in “Arabs in Jerusalem,” the Arab population in Jerusalem now stands at 36% of the city, up from 26% when the city was reunited in 1967. From 1967 to 2011, the Arab population in the city grew by 5.7 times, while the Jewish population in the Israeli capital only grew by 3.4 times over the same period.

No matter the facts. “The Special Rappoteur “called on the Council to undertake efforts to have the UN’s top court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), assess allegations that the prolonged occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem possess elements of “colonialism,” “apartheid” and ‘ethnic cleansing.'”

No comments from United States or anyone else about the absurd and caustic statements, nor on the lunatic who made them (who incidentally, is a big 9/11 conspiracy theorist).

Israeli Prime Minister Claims
of Palestinian “Ethnic Cleansing”

In September 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused the Palestinians of “ethnically cleansing” Jews from their historic homeland of Judea and Samaria / the West Bank. Netanyahu made his statement because Abbas has stated he cannot accept a single Israeli living in a new state of Palestine.

Netanyahu did not even bring up a variety of other Palestinian Authority laws, as detailed in “Abbas Knows Racism,” such as:

Palestinian Authority law that condemns any Arab that sells land to a Jew to death.
Palestinian universities bar entry to Jews

The origins of Arab ethnic cleansing of Jews dates back decades, to when the Jordanians illegally annexed eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank in 1950 and expelled all of the Jews from the area. Jordan then passed a citizenship law in 1954 that specifically EXCLUDED Jews from being granted citizenship in their own homeland.

“Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954″ (Article 3)

So what was the world reaction when Netanyahu finally stated some clear and obvious facts? Condemnation.

The spokesperson for the US State Department responded to the Netanyahu video: “We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful.”

When Abbas heard that Netanyahu used the “ethnic cleansing” charge, Abbas doubled-down by saying again that Israel uses “ethnic cleansing” against the Palestinians.

No comment from the State Department about Abbas’s use of the term.

The current United States administration and United Nations have no time or interest for Israelis stating simple truths. It would appear, that if you want the world to agree and applaud, you would best be served by denying facts like the Palestinian Arabs.