Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

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

If people really had such compelling arguments, why do they need to always use extreme examples to make their case?

Magnifying the Margins

Both liberal and conservatives often try to argue their points of view by highlighting extreme examples that have little to do with day-to-day reality. Could it be that the basic lines of their arguments are tenuous? Consider some examples:

President Obama took to the airwaves after a terrible mass killing in October 2015, to argue for gun control. The reality is that the number of murders from mass killings is a very small percentage of gun-related deaths. The vast majority of gun deaths – over 60% every year – are in suicides. The over 700 deaths from guns in accidental shootings, is lower than the number of drownings in pools. Gang and drug-related crimes make up another large segment of gun deaths. Of the over 32,000 gun-related deaths in the United States in 2015, 475 – 1 percent – were in mass shootings. If Obama really cared about gun deaths, he should take to the airwaves after suicides and gang violence, not from random mass shootings.

Obama sheds a tear during remarks on gun violence, October 2015
(photo: Chip Somodevilla, Getty Images)

Liberal and pro-abortion activists highlight the need for abortion, and vilify pro-life people that are against abortions in cases of rape and incest. Rape and incest account for just 1% of abortions according to the Guttmacher Institute. Almost all abortions are done for financial or relationship reasons. Why bring up such marginal cases to make a point? If the law states that abortions are legal before the baby is viable outside of the mother, at about 22 weeks (a law driven by time), then the reasons for having the abortion should have no part in the conversation.

Republicans and foreign policy hawks are equally at fault for magnifying the margins. Conservatives continue to pound the table about the threat of Islamic terrorism in the United States. In fact, the number of deaths from Islamic terrorism in the 14 years since September 11, 2001, is less than the number of people who died in lightening strikes.

Denying the Obvious

The convoluted arguments noted above become further estranged from the truth when people also deliberately deny the obvious.

Consider Obama’s refusal to state that there even is something called “radical Islamic terrorism,” which presidential candidate Republican Senator Ted Cruz repeats often. While Obama may be correct that there many, many Muslims who are not terrorists, that has nothing to do with the scourge of terrorism in the world that is almost exclusively conducted by Islamic radicals.

Donald Trump calls for banning all Muslims from the US
until the vetting process is improved, December 2015

It is similarly absurd for pro-choice advocates to claim that abortion is 100% about a women’s privacy, as if the issue was akin to a tattoo or body piercing. Such a position inherently argues that a fetus has zero rights until it is actually born. That line of reasoning is as extreme as people who argue that life begins at the very instant of conception. The US Supreme Court and most thoughtful Americans believe a fetus deserves rights at some point between those two extreme moments in time.

The Beautiful Gray Truth

Reality is often a bit too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker. “Pro Choice” fits neater than “Roe v. Wade is about the stage of development of the fetus, and modern science now enables pre-mature births to survive at 22 weeks as opposed to 24 weeks when the law was passed 50 years ago, so I am in favor of moving the timeframe to the new earlier date as the limit for having a legal abortion.” Definitely too wordy.

The truth is that radical Islam is the source of most of the terrorism in the world and the destabilizing force from the middle east and north Africa through Europe. And it is also true that most Muslims are not terrorists.

But political discourse is now only had at the edges. Politicians and mainstream media magnify marginal situations, denying the middle any air. That middle ground is where 99% of the truth lies.

Rise of the Independents and Libertarians

If there is a silver lining to the extreme positions taken by the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, it is that Americans are leaving them both. The number of people who consider themselves political Independents jumped to 43% in 2014, according to a Gallup poll, the highest level ever. That figure compares to 30% for Democrats and 26% for Republicans.

Perhaps Americans realize the foolish spin they are given every day. Maybe Americans are not really being driven to extremes – its just the two party system that has begun to champion marginal rhetoric, and most Americans are still in the middle. Americans may only be fed up with Washington D.C., because they hate the two parties that occupy it.

Maybe.

Hopefully.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Killed Terrorists

Posted on March 15, 2016 by First.One.Through

France Against ISIS

Every media outlet reported repeatedly about the devastation in Paris in November 2015. The terrorist attacks throughout the city killed 130 people going about their daily lives, and pictures filled newspaper pages of the bloody scene of the Batclan night club where most of the people were murdered. There were many other pictures and articles of the various innocent victims over the following days.

Front page of the New York Times, November 15, 2015

In the following days the headlines of newspapers broadcast that France was attacking ISIS in retaliation for the attacks. Liberal papers like the New York Times editorial section even stated that “France rightfully attacked ISIS.” The papers reported 20 sorties.

Yet, where were the pictures of the dead ISIS fighters? Where was the headcount of how many fighters were killed?

For all of the coverage about the terrorist attack and follow-up airstrikes, there was virtually no discussion of the deaths inflicted on the ISIS fighters in Syria or Iraq.

The pictures in the paper show the innocent victims of France. Nowhere does it show the images of what the French did in response.

The US Against Al Shabab

On March 8, 2016, the New York Times reported that the US struck and killed 150 fighters in Somalia, belonging to the terrorist group Al Shabab. The United States has been fighting against Al Shabab, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, for a decade. While this group has not conducted any attacks on US soil against American civilians, a Pentagon spokesperson claimed that the group was planning a “large-scale attack” against US troops.

The US attack was the deadliest attack against Islamic militants in Africa.

There were no pictures in the newspapers to accompany the article.

There were no follow up stories.

Israel Against Hamas

Hamas has defined itself as opposed to the very existence of Israel. They refuse to acknowledge any right or legitimacy of the Jewish State. They repeatedly state in their charter and on their news programs that there can be no peace agreement with Israel, only jihad.

Hamas has launched over 10,000 rockets into Israel, since Israel left Gaza in 2005. The group has instigated three wars and killed over a thousand Israelis. Those Hamas wars have claimed thousands of Palestinian Arab lives as well.

However, unlike the invisible terrorists of ISIS and Al Shabab, the papers post the pictures of dead Palestinian terrorists. Whether covering the front pages of the paper in the summer of 2014, or running long articles with several pictures of Gazans dying using the tunnel network, the paper relays the Palestinians in a sympathetic light. The people of Gaza, who voted for and are governed by the terrorist group Hamas, are shown as victims time and again.

The United Nations often condemns Israel for “disproportionate” force in stopping Palestinian attackers actively involved in attacking people. It did not condemn France nor the United States for its actions against terrorists.

Maybe every day people can begin to condemn the media for disproportionate coverage of Israel’s handling its War on Terror.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Review of Media Headlines on Palestinian Arab Terror Spree

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

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

The Big, Bad Lone Wolves of Terrorism

The New York Times Refuses to Label Hamas a Terrorist Group

Flip-Flopping on the Felling of Terrorist Groups’ Founders

My Terrorism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

Posted on March 13, 2016 by First.One.Through

Politicians have always been great at promising people things for free. However, over the past decade, there has been an added element of not simply granting goodies to constituents, but to blame select parties for problems and seizing their money to pay for the free stuff for the masses. It is a dangerous path of divisiveness being waged by both the far-left and right.

Free, Without Guilt

Americans began to believe that things can be totally free over the past decade. They downloaded digital music and movies for free over the internet. They got games for free based on “freemium” business plans. Now, they want to abrogate the bargain they quietly struck with media companies to watch their advertising, as they install ad-blocking software on their devices.

People are demanding – and getting – more and more stuff for free.

Not surprisingly, politicians have ratcheted up their promises too.

Individuals seeking office would declare that once in office, they would fix whatever was broken, whether infrastructure, the economy or the military. The funds to pay for such repair would be easy to come by, mainly through removing government “waste” and “inefficiencies.” These solutions were wonderfully popular. The country could be great again without hurting anyone or sacrificing anything. The money was already present, but simply wasted in bureaucracy.

How great! A nation got stuff, and it didn’t cost a dime!

Occasionally politicians would be a bit more specific and attack an institution that no one liked, like the IRS. Some people would lose jobs – those that collect your taxes – but otherwise, America would be fixed and Americans would be wealthier without any effort or sacrifice.

Someone Took Your Cheese

The model changed in 2008 when Senator Barack Obama ran for president. Obama spoke about the “top 1%” obtaining too much wealth. As president in 2009, he described the “fat cat” investment bankers who put the country at risk in the financial meltdown of 2008.

He pointed fingers. He ascribed blame to people who abused a profession.

Economists argue how much the economic collapse was the fault of investment banks as opposed to the government that pushed banks to lend to the poor to purchase homes that they could not afford, in an effort to close the wealth gap. Whether right or wrong, Obama openly segmented the United States into the rich that caused the financial crisis, and other 99% that bore the brunt of the meltdown due to no fault of their own.

These fat cats would help pay for Obama’s promise for free stuff for America. Americans would get free healthcare, and the rich would pay “their fair share.”

Beginning the Class Civil War

The liberal wing actively forgot the roles of Democratic favorites Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Frank Raines and Barney Frank had in the housing crisis and the financial meltdown. Selective memory authenticated the manifest superiority of their world view.

Their arrogance begat outright outrage when the Supreme Court ruled against Hillary Clinton in Citizens United in 2010. That ruling stated that corporations were entitled to free speech, similar to citizens. The “progressive” politicians, led by Obama, decried that with such ruling, the rich could now effectively buy any election. The wealth gap would translate into a voting gap whereby the wealthiest people and corporations could taint the airwaves with capitalistic propaganda. The masses would never be able to withstand the onslaught of big corporate advertising, and would relegate liberals to a permanent minority party.

For the liberal elites, the wealthy were no longer simply “fat cats” that didn’t pay their “fair share.” They were an oversized enemy that threatened to forever quash their aspirations.

Vilification from the Far-Left

The liberal arrogance and anger produced hostility. Republicans met those feelings with a wealthy businessman.

Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, was attacked for being rich and his investment firm for being predatory. His policies for the country were not attacked; his wealth was attacked.

By the next presidential election cycle in 2015, liberals dug in even deeper. Self-described “Democratic Socialist” Senator Bernie Sanders went beyond pointing fingers at bankers. Instead, he described the entire financial industry as a “fraud.” Sanders’ claim surpassed Obama’s statement that there were some bankers that abused the system that avoided paying their fair share – Sanders said “fraud is the business model on Wall Street.” The very essence of banks was a corrupt system that cheated Americans.

Sanders announced that the pathway to free goodies such as free college, would be to reclaim from the rich the money that those criminals never deserved in the first place. It’s not only that the wealthy didn’t pay enough taxes; they made too much money in a corrupt system. He proposed that the banking system should be completely revamped to both limit how much income bankers could make, and to double their tax rates. Free college would be paid “by imposing a tax on Wall Street transactions by investment houses, hedge funds and other speculators.” Note that these institutions were no longer investing to build America’s economy according to Sanders – they were all “speculators.”

In just a decade, liberal politicians moved from handing out free stuff without any blame, to vilifying a group of people, to demonizing an entire industry and capitalism itself.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders

The far-left is not alone in demonizing whole groups of people, then reaching into those pockets to fund projects, all while claiming the righteousness of the cause.

Vilification from the Right

A Republican candidate for president, businessman Donald Trump, also wants to “make America great again.” Part of how he’ll do it is by giving Americans things for free – like a secure border.

Trump declared that he was going to protect America from foreign rapists and terrorists by building a “great great wall” between the USA and Mexico. And guess what? It’ll be for free. The Mexican government will pay for it.

Yay! More free stuff!

He rallied people to his cause by degrading both his Republican and Democratic opponents. Like Sanders, he bellowed about Americans’ fears, and pointed fingers at people and institutions that were corrupt and inept that needed to be overhauled and overthrown.

Greed and Anger

Americans are fond of getting things for free. If the amount of government waste is not enough for free handouts, they will be happy to take a baton to a piñata to get their due. And they will beat that piñata senseless if they are both angry and feel threatened.

Trump and Sanders are handing their angry and scared followers large batons, and pointing to opponents as political piñatas.

Healthcare and education have been the only two items that have escalated in cost more than inflation every year. These important components of life were rapidly becoming prohibitively expensive for many. The fear of becoming ill and then destitute is real for many Americans. The burden of college loans frightens many to abandon the dream of a degree.

The solution offered by Obama was to focus on adding fees onto various people and the healthcare industry, to give subsidized medicine to the poor. But he made virtually no attempt to lower the escalation of healthcare costs through items like major tort reform.

For his part, Sanders is looking to provide free college to people. He makes no attempt to lower the escalating costs of education through reforms to professor tenure and sabbaticals (no other industry in America has such institutionalized largess and abuse). Instead, he seeks new taxes to pay for the new perks.

Sanders’ proposal does not follow Obama’s lead that taxed the institutions from the same industry (healthcare) to pay for education. Sanders wants to tax a group that has nothing to do with college (Wall Street), simply because he views the industry as corrupt and too wealthy.

Such action moves past Obama’s coupling of fear and entitlements. That is a marriage of greed and anger.

Trump’s call to build a great big wall is a modification of those two efforts: a pairing of fear and anger.

Trump is addressing Americans fear about terrorism. Not everyday killings on the street by gangs, but foreigners coming into the country and causing havoc.

Americans see the carnage all over Facebook and news in Europe about foreign murderers and rapists. That situation can come to the USA. Like Obama, he will provide Americans with something they want, to address something they fear that will not cost them anything. Like Sanders, he loudly points a finger at the party that he intends to charge with the solution.

Reality

Getting free stuff is fun. Addressing a fear is important. Vetting anger feels good. But those feelings have nothing to do with truth.

Only addressing the method of paying for free healthcare and education does nothing to address the painful sacrifices that must be made to address the COSTS of healthcare and education. It remains unsustainable and the quality of both will plummet.

Exclusively blaming Wall Street without blaming the government that pushed banks to lend to the poor, is not just half-a-story. It is cherry-picking so much that it tells a lie that will lead to more bad governmental policies.

Blaming the border with Mexico for Islamic terrorism that grips the world is a gross misrepresenting of the people from Latin America that are seeking a better quality of life. They seek to join America, not a path to destroy America.

The fears of Americans regarding security and the economy are real. But the politicians from the right and left are feeding Americans a diet of half-truths with their free give-aways. They have stoked public anger in an environment of free entitlements.

The movement to blame people for systemic problems is called scapegoating. Vilifying them with falsehoods put dangerous emotions in play. Today’s candidates are coupling fear, anger and greed to a dangerous level.

Almost 600 years ago, on March 12, 1421, the people of Vienna, Austria accused the Jews of abusing Christianity. They burned families at the stake and took all of their possessions. A false claim turned into an inferno. The coupling of fear and anger led to free goodies for the masses.

Let’s not simply hope that calmer heads prevail. We must all call out the lies and hatred that are emanating from the Democratic and Republican contenders.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Trump Fails to Understand that Jews Want Peace, not a Deal

The Invisible Anti-Semitism in Obama’s 2016 State of the Union

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

Posted on March 11, 2016 by First.One.Through

Five years ago, in March 2011, the world was a very violent place. The Secretary-General of the United Nations often spoke at length about the responsibility to protect civilians from violence. In some places.

When it came to Israel, after two Palestinian Arab men slaughtered five people in their beds while they slept, Ban Ki Moon uttered few words, and rather than demand better protection for civilians, he argued that the government should “act with restraint.”

Just four days before the massacre in Itamar, Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said the following: “The Palestinian Authority continues to make progress in institution-building and the delivery of public services, which leaves it well-positioned for the establishment of a State at any point in the near future. Israelis should be comforted by the emergence of a reliable partner and neighbour committed to Israel’s right to live in peace and security, opposed to violence and terrorism, and able to deliver on the ground.”

More ignorant words may never have been spoken.

If the UN Secretary General was so impressed with the PA as a partner, why does he never call out the Palestinian Authority to stop inciting violence and protect people? As seen below, he is comfortable calling on other ruling authorities to protect civilians. Except Israel.

Quotes from Ban Ki Moon in March 2011

On Israel, March 12, 2011 (38 words): “The Secretary-General condemns last night’s shocking murder of an Israeli family of five, including three children, in a West Bank settlement. He calls for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, and for all to act with restraint.”

There was no call for ensuring the protection of innocent civilians.
There was no calling out of the Palestinian Authority for incitement.
There was no call to contain Palestinian extremists to prevent the further loss of life.

That would only happen for other countries, where he would wax on about the obligation to protect civilians:

On Sudan, March 14, 2011 (161 words): ” He calls upon the leadership of the National Congress Party (NCP) and Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) to restrain the local communities in Abyei and to implement the short-term containment measures…”

On Libya, March 17, 2011 (208 words): “Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfil its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government. The Resolution authorizes the use of all necessary measures, including a no-fly zone to prevent further casualties and loss of innocent lives”

On Syria, March 18, 2011 (104 words): “The use of lethal force against peaceful demonstrators and their arbitrary arrests are unacceptable”

On Yemen, March 18, 2011 (111 words): ” He reiterates his call for utmost restraint and reminds the Government of Yemen that it has an obligation to protect civilians. He calls on all to desist from any provocative acts that might lead to further violence..”

On Libya, March 23, 2011 (64 words): “…he reiterates his call for an immediate end to violence by all parties, in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973, and for the responsibility to protect civilians.”

On Syria, March 23, 2011 (101 words): “He reminds the Syrian Government of its obligation to protect civilians”

On Ivory Coast, March 31, 2011 (175 words): “He urges all parties to abide by their responsibility to avoid harm to the civilian population. It is essential that all parties cooperate with the United Nations Mission in Côte d’Ivoire in carrying out its mandate to protect civilians. The Secretary-General reiterates that those responsible for inciting, orchestrating or committing human rights violations will be held accountable under international law.“

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon

The UN Secretary General believes governments in the region should protect civilians, but Israel should rely on the Palestinian Authority for its security. In March 2011, a family was butchered in their beds.

Five years later, Ban Ki Moon continues the same pattern of not calling out the Palestinian Authority – which he still claims is a “reliable partner and neighbor” for Israel’s security – for inciting murder. He excuses them with words that the Palestinians are “frustrated.” He absolves their sins with silence.

Five years on, innocent civilians continue to be killed in the streets of Israel, and Ban Ki Moon continues to deny that Israel has the right and responsibility to protect its citizens.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

The Hollowness of the United Nations’ “All”

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 Media Centre Ignores Murdered Israelis

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Henkins

FirstOneThrough video of Itamar massacre: The 2011 Massacre of the Fogels in Itamar (Gorecki)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Review of Media Headlines on Palestinian Arab Terror Spree

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

On March 8, 2016, several Palestinian Arabs attacked Israelis in various locations in Israel. A particularly horrible assault occurred in Jaffa, where a Palestinian Arab man stabbed various civilians, killing an American tourist.

Scene of Palestinian Arab terror attack at Jaffa Port, March 8, 2016
(photo: Tomer Neuberg/Flash90)

The headlines from major news agencies show a range of focus: some focus on the attacker being a Palestinian, others omit the fact completely; most focused on an American being killed, some papers ignored mentioning the many Israelis injured.

The more complete news accounts came from papers often viewed as slightly more conservative. The papers that whitewashed the Palestinian Arab attacker came from more liberal papers.

The Palestinian media center inverted the story completely, focusing on the terrorist that was killed.

Focus on American Killed and Israelis Injured by Palestinian

“Palestinian attacks kill American student, wound 12 Israelis” US News & World Report
“Palestinian attacks kill American student, wound 12 Israelis” Washington Post
“Palestinian Attacks Kill American Student, Wound 12 Israelis” .. abcnews
“Jaffa stabbing spree: Palestinian kills American tourist, wounds 10 others” Jerusalem Post Israel News‎

Only American Killed by Palestinian

“Palestinian kills U.S. tourist in stabbing spree on Tel Aviv boardwalk” Reuters
“American tourist killed as Palestinians unleash attacks in Israel” CBS News
“Palestinian kills US tourist in Israel” BBC News

American Killed and Israelis Injured – But Not by Palestinian

“US student dead and at least 13 others injured in attacks across Israel” The Guardian
“American fatally stabbed in Israel terror attack that wounds 10 others” CNN

Only American Killed – not by Palestinian

“Vanderbilt MBA Student Killed Amid Stabbing Violence in Israel as Biden Arrives for Talks” NBC News
“American Graduate Student Killed in Stabbing Rampage Near Tel Aviv” New York Times
“American dies in Israel stabbing attack” USA Today
“U.S. tourist killed in knife attack in Israel, where survey illuminates deep divides” LA Times

The last two headlines could lead a reader to conclude that Israelis killed the American tourist.

Focus on Palestinians Being Killed

“3 Palestinians shot dead after multiple attacks kill tourist, wound 12” Maan News Agency (Palestinian NGO)

“Israel’s Killing of Four Palestinians Focus of Dailies“ Wafa, the Palestinian News Agency. Wafa led that the local Palestinian papers all focused on Israelis killing Palestinians, placing Israelis as the aggressors as opposed to defending themselves.

News reports are often crafted and biased. They deliberately add and omit information and highlight certain aspects of stories.

Consider what narrative you read each day. If you continue to only read from the same news source, your perception of the news will be unbalanced.

For most Americans, that bias has been liberal and anti-Israel, by measuring the circulation of conservative media (Washington Post 400,000; US News <1 million) versus liberal media (USA today 3 million; New York times 1.4 million).

Even in a clear-cut story of a terrorist stabbing a dozen civilians on March 8, 2016, one can see how the media directs a story. In the more complicated Israeli-Arab conflict, readers are left at the mercy of biased journalists and editors.

Consider getting information from a different political perspective in addition to your favorite media site. Innocent victims of terror deserve more than what the popular USAToday opts to publish.

Related First.One.Through articles:

New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

The New York Times’ Buried Pictures

Every Picture Tells A Story: Only Palestinians are Victims

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Invisible Murdered Israelis

Framing the Israeli-Palestinian Arab Conflict: WSJ and NY Times

Every Picture Tells a Story: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Every Picture Tells a Story: Versions of Reality

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

What Happened to Intelligent Debate?

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Civil Death and Terrorism

Posted on March 4, 2016 by First.One.Through

Many governments are trying to develop legal structures to prevent and punish acts of terrorism. Their proposals and actions would extend to those who have not (yet) committed terrorism in their countries, to those who join terrorist groups such as the Islamic State/ ISIS.

France has considered stripping a person of their French citizenship if they engage in terrorist acts, if they were not born in France and held a second passport. The United Kingdom is considering a law of stripping British citizenship for naturalized Britons (those not born in the country).

While western European governments consider different ways of inhibiting terrorism and would-be terrorists, rights groups have argued that these steps infringe on an individual’s freedoms. The groups contend that a government should not take punitive actions against a person before they actually commit a wrongful deed.

The governments are seeking a middle ground: not incarcerating a person if they are not found liable of committing a crime, yet still punishing them from embarking on a path towards terrorism. Indeed, prison takes away a person’s freedoms, while withdrawing citizenship removes a person’s rights. Placing a person in jail removes a potential threat; the softer stance of removing citizenship inhibits dangerous associations.

The governments’ course of actions are not without precedent.

Civil Death

The United States has a legal concept called “Civil Death.” A “civil death” essentially strips a person of their rights that are connected to the government. For example, a violent felon would lose:

The right to vote
The ability to hold public office
The ability to be licensed for a business (many businesses require licenses to operate)
Ability to enter contracts or sue in court
The right to obtain insurance or pension
Any and all property

These are no small matters. Such person would not be in prison, but remain very limited in the ability to live, work and function freely in society. The courts effectively rule that if a person has shown a willful intolerance and disdain for society’s rules and laws, they will no longer be protected by those same laws.

Israel has used a similar approach in its ongoing war against terror.

Israel

Israel has long struggled with how to deter terrorists. The military reduces acts of terrorism through roadblocks, checkpoints, and barriers, but they do not inhibit a person from considering such action. The difference is significant, particularly for people who are willing to kill themselves in the act of terrorism. There is no jail sentence for a suicide bomber.

Israel has ruled that people who aid and abet violent acts can be found liable, or at least partially liable, for the criminal behavior. Israel has used home demolitions of suicide bombers as a means of punishing the murderer’s family who knowingly enabled the act of terrorism.

IDF demolishing home of Palestinian Arab terrorist
(photo: Reuters)

Rights groups have condemned the Israeli policy. They claim that such actions amount to collective punishment against ordinary civilians who did not participate in any crime. That position, while used by B’Tselem broadly, is actually unclear. Not only may the family members be aware of the planned attack, but if the terrorist was the owner of the house, then the government could claim that all such rights to property ownership were null and void the moment the owner committed the terrorist act. As such, the home became government property, which it can handle as it sees fit.

The Israeli government is exploring other punitive acts that are similar to the actions taken by European governments, such as revoking work papers or residency rights for terrorists and those that assist them. Other penalties could be handed down for the “civil dead” should they be found guilty of crimes in the future:

Forfeit any chance for parole
Never be exchanged in a prisoner swap

Governments around the world are investigating ways to slow the tide of would be terrorists. As they do, the various punishments of a civil death will likely be explored in the future.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Collective Guilt / Collective Punishment

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

Alternatives for Punishing Dead Terrorists

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Israel’s Peers and Neighbors

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

Observers of Israel often consider the appropriate benchmark for the country. To whom should Israel be compared? Against the Western world or its neighbors in the Middle East?

Western World Peers

The arguments to compare Israel to western countries such as in Western Europe and North America are plentiful.

Democracy: Israel is a democracy in which all citizens of the country elect its leadership, similar to the western world. That is in stark contrast to its neighbors that have monarchies and dictatorships.

Freedoms: Israel believes in various freedoms, including of religion, assembly and press. Such freedoms are cornerstones of western values, but difficult to find elsewhere in the Middle East.

Economy: Israel’s economy is based on capitalism. It has been termed the “start-up nation” due to the tremendous number of companies that are launched by ordinary Israelis. This compares to the economies dominated by oil money controlled by governments among Israel’s neighbors.

The long list of commonalities is detailed in “Israel, the Liberal Country of the Middle East.” The peer group for Israel according to its principles and values is indeed the western world, not the MENA region.

Neighbors in MENA
(Middle East and North Africa)

Arab World

Israel resides in a predominantly Arab neighborhood. The people of the Arabian Peninsula spread en masse from the region shortly after the founding of Islam, during the 6th and 7th centuries. In some locations, like Turkey, the Arab invasion was repelled, even while the Islamic religion still took hold in the area. There are now 22 Arab countries and 57 Muslim countries, most of which surround Israel.

Muslim World

While Israel is unique in being the only Jewish State in the world, it’s uniqueness is magnified within its neighborhood that is almost uniformly Arab and Muslim. Many of these Muslim countries are governed by Sharia, Islamic law, while others have laws that are Sharia-inspired. These laws have little in common with laws found in western countries. This is even true where the British held Mandates after World War I, such as in Jordan and Iraq.

Judging Peers

English Common Law has a concept that a person should be judged by a group of one’s peers. The rationale for this provision was to afford context and humanity to the cold rule of law. As peers should know a defendant better than a judge, those individuals in the jury could fine-tune the rule of law for the specific case and party.

In the United States, the concept of “peers” has been adjusted to “neighbors.” The jury pool in the US courts system pulls in people from an entire region. The individuals in such neighborhood likely have a wide range of backgrounds, including: race; religion; occupation; wealth; political views, to name a few. US law requires that any party that knows the defendant – presumably who are more likely to be “peers” – to be excluded from the jury so as to avoid favoritism. As such, the US system has moved from a court of peers to one of neighbors.

What happens when one’s peer group and one’s neighbors have nothing in common? An extreme example happens every day in the court of world opinion regarding Israel.

Judging Israel

Neighbors: Israel’s neighbors have opposed the very existence of the Jewish homeland since such concept became international law in the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1922 British Mandate for Palestine. Sporadic riots in the 1920s became a multi-year war 1936-9, when the Arabs convinced the British to roll back the essence of the laws to curtail Jewish immigration and cap the number of Jews in Palestine, as well as to limit where Jews could live. When Israel declared independence in 1948, Arab armies from that surrounded Israel fought to destroy the country.

The parties have been at war ever since, with the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan which made peace with Israel in 1979 and 1994, respectively.

Today, the 57 Muslim nations that comprise the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), vote as a bloc at the United Nations, and consistently condemn Israel for anything and everything, as they view the “Zionist entity” as illegal and unjust.

Clearly, this is not a group of neighbors that can be used as a “jury of one’s peers” to assess whether Israel is acting appropriately in any given matter.

Representatives of the OIC

Peers: Israel cares about the opinions of its peer group in western Europe, North America and Australia. These countries share Israel’s values and have ongoing trading and commercial relationships with Israel.

Much of the criticism against Israel from its peer group relates to Israel’s activities in the disputed territories east of the Green Line (EGL/West Bank). Some governments claim that Israel “occupies” the Palestinian people and takes over “Arab land.” Those critics call out Israel for its use of its military and point to lopsided casualty figures in Israeli-Arab wars. They protest Israel’s use of roadblocks, the security barrier, and of house demolitions of terrorists.

The flaw of such commentary is that it inherently assumes that Israel’s peer group exists – or could exist – in the same environment as Israel.

A Mile in Their Shoes

As detailed in “Israel: Security in a Small Country,” Israel is almost 1/500th of the size of the United States, but has three times as many neighbors. It is half of the size of the Netherlands, but no Dutch neighbor refuses to recognize its right to exist. Israel may have a similar number of countries bordering it as Argentina, but none of Argentina’s neighbors have launched numerous wars against it over the past decades. The United Kingdom may have knowledge of the region from managing the Palestine Mandate from 1924 to 1948, but when was the last time England had foreign tanks and fighters on its home soil? France may have experienced terrorism, but is there a country working to obtain nuclear weapons that threatens to wipe it off the map?

In short, Israel’s values’ peers do not have comparable security issues.

Israel’s values’ peer group of western Europe, North America and Australia
are peaceful relative to the raging conflicts in MENA

When countries in the western world do have moments of inflamed security concern, such as when France suffered from terrorist attacks in November 2015, that country quickly went on the offensive. It instituted curfews. It performed raids on apartments. It curtailed a range of freedoms…. much as Israel does when it confronts security concerns on a continual basis.

Members of French special police forces of the Research and Intervention Brigade (BRI) and forensic experts are seen near a raid zone in Saint-Denis, near Paris, France, November 18, 2015 during an operation to catch fugitives from Friday night’s deadly attacks in the French capital. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann – RTS7R5L

After the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001, it went on a multi-year, multi-country war, which is still ongoing in Afghanistan. Many more people have been killed in the US wars on terror, than were killed on 9/11.

Israel has faced more than a terrible day of violence; it has daily assaults. Israel has faced more than just terrorism; it has existential threats. And it has continued to confront these security concerns, ever since the country was reconstituted in the 20th century.

Israel’s peers have not walked a mile in Israel’s shoes. They have simply put them on and taken an uncomfortable first step. And as they have done so, they have shown their determination to protect their civilian population and way of life.

Israel shares the democratic values of much of the western world. The critics from Israel’s peer group should recognize and celebrate the society that Israel has been able to create inside the illiberal Middle East. Those peers must also come to recognize and differentiate between the peaceful environment in which they live and the hostile environment in which Israel resides.

Related First.One.Through articles:

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

Seeing Security through a Screen

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

The Disproportionate Defenses of Israel and the Palestinian Authority

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

New York Times Grants Nobel Prize-in Waiting to Palestinian Arab Terrorist

Posted on February 29, 2016 by First.One.Through

There once was a journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting on terrorism. Thirteen years later, it would appear that he cannot find terrorism at all. Or worse. His paper endorses the terrorism itself.

Steven Erlanger has been a reporter for The New York Times for several decades. In 2002, he shared a Pulitzer Prize for his work reporting on the terrorist group al Qaeda. On February 28, 2016, he wrote an article that made a reader question whether he continued to have the faculties to recognize the nature of terror anymore.

In his article called “Talk Grows About Who Will Succeed Palestinians’ Fading Mahmoud Abbas,” Erlanger listed several potential candidates to succeed the inept current acting-President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas. In addition to some leading candidates, Erlanger wrote:

“The other inescapable figure is Marwan Barghouti, 56, sometimes called the Palestinian Mandela for his long period in Israeli prison and his efforts to bring Hamas and Fatah together.”

No reasonable person calls Barghouti a Palestinian Mandela other than anti-Israel outfits like The Guardian in the United Kingdom. Will the Times also begin to refer to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “modern day Winston Churchill” like the National Review? I doubt it.

Using a referral to a secondary source (“sometimes called”) made Erlanger appear as an unbiased reporter rather than inserting his own editorial into the story. But sourcing such a narrow and biased paper for a quote, rather than broadly used terminology, is an editorial itself, not news.

Barghouti versus Mandela

Part of the reason the reference to Mandela is so absurd is the nature of the two individuals’ imprisonments. Nelson Mandela was imprisoned because he tried to fight the racist apartheid system in South Africa. Marwan Barghouti was not imprisoned for fighting for rights for Palestinians, nor for “his efforts to bring Hamas and Fatah together.” Barghouti was jailed for his direct involvement in murdering several civilians.

Between January and June 2002, Barghouti was directly involved with killing of: Yula Hen at a gas station (January 2002); Yosef Havi, Eliyahu Dahan and Selim Barachat in a restaurant (March 2002); and Gur Pzipokatsatakis, a Greek Orthodox monk (June 2002). For those crimes, he received five life sentences.

In addition to those direct murders, Barghouti was also held responsible for a failed suicide bombing at a major shopping mall in Jerusalem. For that crime, he received another 40 year sentence.

His involvement in the murder of scores of other civilians was beyond dispute, however, the Israeli courts deemed it was beyond its authority to convict him.

Barghouti is credited with launching the Second Intifada at the end of 2000. Tanzim, the terror arm of Fatah, targeted Israeli civilians around the country, such as on buses and at bat mitzvah celebrations. The Tanzim attacks went on continuously in 2001 and early 2002 until his arrest, and sporadically afterwards.

Marwan Barghouti, head of Tanzim

This background is in sharp contrast to Nelson Mandela, who also headed a terrorist group. UmKhonto we Sizwe, the terrorist arm of the ANC and South African Communist Party, carried out several attacks against South Africans in the 1980s.

But the similarity ends there. Mandela fought against the racism of apartheid, while Barghouti fought against the existence of Israel.

Mandela started the group after the South African government killed 69 people. Barghouti launched the Second Intifada after Yasser Arafat rejected the terms of the peace agreement with Israel.

Mandela was never directly involved in any murders. Barghouti was involved in several.

Today, Erlanger refers to Barghouti’s call for a unity government between Hamas and Fatah. He ignores Barghouti’s incitement for a Third Intifada.

The Evolving Palestinian Narrative of the New York Times

For several years, the New York Times has written about the Israeli – Palestinian Arab conflict from a Palestinian point of view. The biases included portraying Israelis as aggressors and Palestinians as victims. It softened the image of Palestinian fighters by not calling on Hamas as a terrorist organization, even while it is so designated by many countries including the United States.

Most recently, the Times has extended that Palestinian narrative to a new level: Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters. Their fight against Israel is noble and just and should be welcomed by progressives:

On February 27, the Times called the terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine as a “leftist group,” embracing the murderers of Israeli civilians as part of the progressive global movement.
On February 28, the Times awarded a convicted murderer a Nobel Prize-in waiting, by calling Marwan Barghouti a “Palestinian Mandela.”

These are new and problematic lows.

Feeling sympathy for people who suffer is natural (ignoring for a moment the debate about the cause for such suffering). But labeling terrorist groups and murderers in glowing terms is a hairs-breadth from endorsing murder and terrorism.

Will that be next? Is the Times preparing to endorse a Third Intifada?

Related First.One.Through articles:

The New York Times wants the military to defeat terrorists (but not Hamas)

Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel

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

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

What’s “Left” for The New York Times?

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

On February 27, 2016, the New York Times ran an article on page A7 by Diaa Hadid titled “Palestinian Fugitive Is Found Dead in Bulgarian Capital.” The article described how “a Palestinian man who escaped from prison in Israel more than 20 years ago was found dead outside the Palestinian Embassy in Bulgaria.” The piece described how “Mr. Zayed, 52, was sentenced to life in prison after he was convicted of the murder of Eliyahu Amedia, an Israeli yeshiva student, in 1986…. Omar Zayed escaped custody in 1990 after he went on a 40-day hunger strike and was transferred from prison to a hospital in Bethlehem, according to a statement by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a leftist Palestinian group to which Mr. Zayed belonged.”

Wow. The New York Times described the PFLP as a “leftist group.” Is it?

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)

The PFLP was founded in December 1967, and makes no secret about its enemies: Israel; the “World Zionist Movement”; and the United States of America. The inclusion of the USA is clear, as the PFLP states on its website: “In the battle for the liberation of Palestine, we are facing a third force, that of world imperialism led by the United States of America.”

The goal of the PFLP is the complete destruction of Israel through armed conquest from all sides. As it states in its manifesto written in 1969: “The armed struggle against Israel and all imperialist interests in our homeland, the expansion of the armed struggle front which stands in the face of Arab reaction and all imperialist interests and bases in the Arab homeland, and the encirclement of Israel with the strategy of the people’s liberation war from every side – from Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and inside the territory occupied before and after 5 June 1967 – is the only path that leads to victory.”

PFLP logo, showing map representing the Arab world
entering and consuming all of Israel

Some of the group’s activities have included:

Hijacking El Al plane (July 1968)
Hijacking three planes (September 1970)
The assassination Israeli Member of Knesset Rehavam Ze’evi (October 2001)
Suicide bombing in a pizza store in Karnei Shomron killing three civilians (February 2002)
Suicide bombing in a bus station in Tel Aviv killing three (December 2003)
Suicide bombing in a food market in Tel Aviv killing three (November 2004)
Killing four rabbis praying in a synagogue with axes and knives in Jerusalem (November 2014)

The PFLP continues to incite terrorism, as it praises attacks and calls “on all strugglers in Palestine to escalate the flame of the intifada.”

Due to its mission and actions, the US State Department labeled the PFLP a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) when it formulated such list at inception on October 8, 1997, together with the PFLP-General Command.

PFLP hands out sweets after the group claimed credit for hacking four Jewish worshipers to death in a Har Nof synagogue
November, 2014

And the New York Times decided to label this terrorist group a “leftist group’ rather than a terrorist group.

The New York Times Welcomes Arab Terrorism to the “Left”

The NYT is proud of its left-leaning ways.

Just recently, as the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president, it considered that her challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders had fortunately brought the former Secretary of State further to the left: “[Sanders] has brought income inequality and the lingering pain of the middle class to center stage and pushed Mrs. Clinton a bit more to the left than she might have gone on economic issues. Mr. Sanders has also surfaced important foreign policy questions, including the need for greater restraint in the use of military force.”

Note that the Times considers the “greater restraint in the use of military force” to be a leftist ideal. Yet, somehow, the Times called a militant Palestinian Arab group, an organization which has led dozens of suicide bombings, murders and plane hijackings, a group which is a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) according to the US State Department – a “leftist group.”

Perhaps the greater restraint of military forces is a leftist ideal, only when such force is used by America and its allies.

If the right-leaning Wall Street Journal decided to label a terrorist group a “left-wing group,” presumably, many people on the left would be greatly offended. Aligning mass murderers and people who are sworn enemies of the United States, with the liberal cause would be called out as a libelous charge. Letters to the editor would pour forth from “progressive” pens denouncing the comparison.

But here, the left-leaning NYT opted to embrace the terrorist group as one of its own. It actively chose to align their political points of view.

The liberal paper has long declined to label Hamas, another Palestinian Arab group, as a terrorist group. The paper often uses soft language like “a militant group” or “an Islamist group” to portray that FTO.

In February 2016, the Times moved passed softening the image of Palestinian terror. It baptized and embraced Arab terror.

If this is the modern day version of being “progressive,” the entire world should loudly condemn it in every way possible.

New York Times article by Diaa Hadid on February 27, 2016