Assimilation and Hot Chocolate

Posted on February 14, 2016 by First.One.Through

Hot Chocolate

This morning, I woke to a sore throat, a broken boiler, and an outside temperature of negative two degrees Fahrenheit. Of course, I immediately went for the Advil, but hot chocolate has the benefit of making my whole body feel better, not just my throat. I slithered to the kitchen.

I do not have a consistent favorite type of hot chocolate. Oftentimes, I use a base of Hershey’s powdered mix to which I add some Valrhona or perhaps some Trader Joe’s Peppermint. This morning? Sick equals peppermint, right?

With my dairy sink pipes frozen, I was still able to use the boiling water from the Sabbath hot water pot left over from the day before. Thank God.

I used a small spoon to mix the steaming hot water with the various mixes. The hot water did a good job of breaking down the powder, but I had a hard time with some small peppermint balls that floated on top. I spun the spoon clockwise. Counter-clockwise. I pushed the stubborn balls down towards the bottom of the mug. Yet still a few minty clumps remained.

Determined, I took the bottom side of my spoon and mashed the remaining puffs onto the side of the mug. They spread there like a bug on a speedy windshield. I scraped the sides into the rest of my drink.

Fortunately, the water had not yet gone cold in my minute battle, and I was able to enjoy my warm cocoa. However, as it was not quite so hot anymore, I downed the mug rather quickly. It was delicious.

As I finished, I looked at the bottom of the mug to find peppermint sediment peppered on the surface. They survived my early onslaught. I grabbed the spoon to scoop them up, and enjoyed the burst of peppermint to cap my morning drink.

Assimilation

The western world is deeply engaged in discussions about immigrants and refugees. Part of those conversations are about security, but another is related to society’s ability to absorb the thousands of new arrivals. Will they fit in? Will they blend in? What does their arrival mean for the nature of society going forward?

There are some people that are purists and believe that a culture stays fixed forever. They would prefer that their country, say Hungary, remains the same year-in and year-out. The only foreign languages they would hear would be tourists who come for a few days, spend some money, and then leave. No signs would ever be in a language other than Hungarian. The people will all “look” Hungarian and “act” Hungarian.

The approach in France may be different. There, people may welcome immigrants with different backgrounds, but on the proposition that all of these foreigners will melt into French society. It is permissible to be Algerian upon arrival, but the expectation is to become French over time.

The United States has yet a different approach. It very much supports the idea of a melting pot, and has created an educational system that requires that different parts of society must interact with all others. Yet the country is also fine with the patchwork of distinct cultural identities. Chinatowns and Little Italy’s dot America, even while most Chinese and Italians blend into society at large.

I understand that some people want to have the exact same chocolate without any variety every single day. I think it’s a bit boring, but I’m not mixing your mug.

I also appreciate that some people are happy to incorporate a few flavors into their routines. They diligently try to make sure that everything is mixed so completely that all that is left is a singular blended society. No outliers. As I chase the foreign floaties in my hot chocolate, I sometimes think of myself as one of those people.

But there are times when I am reminded about those stubborn clumps that refuse to blend in. It may not have been part of the initial overall plan, but I am happy that some have remained distinct, as they were, when they folded into the mix.

A famous dim-witted philosopher once said that “life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re going to get.” Maybe the corollary is that societies are like cups of hot chocolate; some are more blended than others.

I’m happy with mine.

Related First.One.Through Article:

The End of Together

A Native American, An African American and a Hispanic American walk into Israel…

Crises at the Borders

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

#NYTimes #BlackLivesDontMatter

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

The New York Times is one of the country’s most venerated and most liberal newspapers. Its articles and editorials often use a pluralistic and “progressive” approach in covering events.

Yet, for some reason, year after year, the paper refuses to highlight the terrorism running rampant in Africa.

Boko Haram. Al Shabab. Ansar Dine. It is not a short list, and the attacks are not inconsequential.

This week, three young girls blew themselves up in Nigeria killing scores. Yet the New York Times posted the news back on page A4. At the bottom of the page. With no picture.

New York Times February 11, 2016 Page A4
story on killing of 58 Nigerians

Would the Times ever consider showing such poor coverage of terrorism in Paris? Never. The murder of a dozen people there received front page attention.

If one chose to be generous to the news organization and argue that there wasn’t enough time to cover the story in Nigeria properly… what about the coverage on the following day?

New York Times February 12, 2016 page A9

Nope.

The Times continued to give the story poor coverage. It buried the story in the middle of the paper and again did not use any photographs.

Well, let’s try to find another excuse for the Times – just for fun. Maybe the Times doesn’t cover the murders in Africa because it is a war zone with constant attacks, unlike Paris which is just a peaceful European city.

Then how does one explain the constant front page coverage of suffering Palestinians? In the summer of 2014, the Times put pictures of injured Palestinians on the front page on July 11, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24 and 29. Quite a stretch.

This is the long sad history of the Times. African Lives Don’t matter. Even during Black History Month.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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: Arab Injuries over Jewish Deaths

Strange difference of opinion on Boko Haram and Hamas in New York Times

Select Support in Fighting Terrorism from the US State Department

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

Posted on February 10, 2016 by First.One.Through

J Street, a far-left lobbying group which calls itself “pro-Israel” has a select appreciation for the value of transparency. Consider its statements in the recent past:

On October 23, 2015, the group stated: “J Street congratulates delegates to the World Zionist Congress for overwhelmingly approving a resolution requiring the institutions it oversees to provide Jewish communities around the world with comprehensive and accurate information on their budget, finances and activities.

This was an important vote for democracy and accountability. Jews in Israel and around the world should know where the money they raise to support the State of Israel is invested. They should know that these funds are spent in ways consistent with Jewish values and in a manner that advances Israel’s future as a secure democratic homeland of the Jewish people.

For too long, the actions of vital institutions like the Jewish Agency for Israel, the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael and the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization have operated in secrecy, cloaked in deliberate confusion. Investigations have raised serious concerns about corruption. Meanwhile, some of these organizations, under the direction of the Government of Israel, have funneled funds to strengthen settlements in the West Bank at the expense of needy communities within Israel’s 1967 boundaries…. This massive support shows that financial transparency is something Jews around the world can unite around.”

J Street seemed particularly happy with the notion of clearly showing the flow of funds at organizations as it promoted “democracy,” “accountability” and “transparency.”

However, if the transparency of the flow of funds came against parties J Street supported, like those that opposed settlements, J Street reversed its opinion.

Executive Director of J Street, Jeremy Ben Ami
(photo: JTA/J Street)

On December 28, 2015, J Street condemned the Israeli government for a bill that would provide financial transparency of NGOs (non-governmental governmental organizations):

“J Street is deeply concerned and disappointed by the Israeli cabinet’s decision Sunday to send to the Knesset for approval a one-sided bill aimed at restricting the work of progressive non-governmental organizations which monitor human rights and oppose the occupation…. The bill, which was introduced by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of the right-wing Jewish Home party, would create a series of onerous new requirements that aim to demonize and discredit progressive organizations. Under the guise of “transparency,” these groups would have to identify themselves as foreign agents on the grounds that they receive the majority of their funding from foreign governments. Meanwhile, right-wing organizations, which receive significant funding from private foreign entities, would be free to continue to funnel money to West Bank settlements and to other anti-democratic causes without being subject to the same requirements.”

Somehow, J Street likes transparency in some situations, while not in others.

The group claims that the bill only targets progressive groups, but that is not the case at all. All NGOs, whether left-wing or right-wing, would be forced to declare if they received the majority of their funding from foreign governments. All NGOs funded by private foreign entities – left-wing ones like George Soros’s Open Society, or right-wing groups – would not need to declare if that they were foreign entities.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and current MK (Kulanu) Michael Oren believes that the bill to provide transparency would hurt Israel’s ties to the United States. He suggested including labels for private donations as well as governmental donations. “You either have transparency, or you don’t.”

Perhaps a solution to meet everyone’s goals on transparency would be to label groups funded by foreign governments “Foreign Entities,” and those sponsored by private foreign money “Internationally Sponsored.”

J Street is always keen to expose, highlight and label Jews living in Judea and Samaria and those that support them. As it states on its website: “Communal institutions should provide full transparency to supporters regarding the source, amount and purpose of funds transferred through their accounts to institutions and programs on the West Bank.“

That is why J Street also supports removing the “Made in Israel” label of products made in the “West Bank,” and using a distinct label of products as being “Made in the West Bank.”

Just don’t make J Street or its supporters provide transparency itself on its foreign funding.

Note: To learn more about which organizations and countries support the various lobbying and activist groups, go to NGO-Monitor. For example, the anti-Zionism group Adalah received money from: Switzerland; Belgium; Netherlands; Germany; Sweden; Denmark; the EU as detailed here.

Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

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

Adalah, Dismantling Zionism

Squeezing Zionism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

New York Times Lies about the Gentleness of Zionism

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

“Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
– Dylan Thomas (1914-1953)

The famous Welsh poet Dylan Thomas penned a poem called “Do Not Go Gentle into that Good Night.” In it, he urged people to not accept their deaths meekly, without a fight.

Written for his dying father, the poem struck a chord among the broad public. While the sentiments were intimate, they could be read on a grander scale, as it was published after the end of World War II and the Genocide of the Jews. The British withstood a pounding by the German Nazi forces, but they fought on and prevailed. The Jews of Europe were unarmed, and managed only a few resistance movements. Two-thirds of the Jewish population perished.

Gentleness is normally pursued and praised. But Thomas – and his fans – declared that one should not acquiesce to death. At such times, gentleness is to be shunned.

NY Times Rage Against “Displacement”

On February 7, 2016, New York Times reporter Steven Erlander wrote an article called “Who Are the True Heirs of Zionism?” It’s an interesting question for someone who fails to understand Zionism.

The article launched with Erlander’s negative bias:

“Zionism was never the gentlest of ideologies. The return of the Jewish people to their biblical homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty there have always carried within them the displacement of those already living in the land.”

Quite an opening paragraph to direct readers that Zionism – whatever its future – is evil at its core. Erlander claimed that Zionism lacks a gentleness since it seeks to displace indigenous people. It did so at its founding when the secular founders of Zionism created the State of Israel, and the religious settlers do so now, as they seek to annex the “West Bank,” east of the Green Line (EGL). Such claim is completely false and repeats an anti-Israel narrative of Jews as “colonial occupiers” (as acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas claimed).

In reality, Zionism is about fighting against and fleeing from anti-Semitism. It was the case when Theodore Herzl wrote “The Jewish State” in 1896, and it is the case today. The essence was not about “displacing” people, but creating a safe place for Jews by reestablishing them in their homeland.

Some facts:

Jews always lived in the Holy Land. While the mass expulsion of Jews happened in 135 CE by the Romans, Jews always maintained a presence in Israel. As evidence, Jews have been a majority in Jerusalem since the 1860s, thirty years before the first Zionist Congress. In other words, Jews were not newcomers – they were part of “those already living in the land.”
Jews were the only people that moved to the Holy Land during the last century of Ottoman Rule. From 1800 until the end of the Ottoman Empire, the annual growth rate of Muslims in the Holy Land was just 1.0% – the rate of growth of births minus deaths. That means that no Muslims migrated there. However, the Jewish rate of growth was 2.1% over that time period.
Muslims only began to come to the Holy Land after the British Mandate. After a century of zero Muslim migration, Arab Muslims started to move to the Holy Land after the British Mandate of Palestine took effect. More Muslims moved to Palestine under the British Mandate than Jews.
Jews did not intend to “displace” non-Jews. The Jews did not intend to remove the non-Jews – neither those that lived in Palestine for generations, nor the incredible number of Arab newcomers. The intent of Zionism was to bring in Jews from around the world, not to displace others as Erlander claimed. As evidence, Israel gave citizenship to every non-Jew when it declared statehood in 1948.

When Zionism was first broadly advanced in the 1890s after the Dreyfus Affair in France, there were roughly 540,000 people living in Palestine, and millions of Jews living in Europe and Russia. The dream of Zionism’s founders was to move millions of Jews from Europe and Russia to the sparsely populated, unpopular land of Palestine. As history would have it, two-thirds of the Jews in Europe would be massacred, and the Arabs would expel the Jews from their countries, many of whom were to then move to Israel and become the largest segment of the Israeli population.

Today, there are 8.1 million people in Israel, in just a fraction of the original Mandate of Palestine. Roughly 25% of the people – about 2 million – are non-Jews. That is over four times the number of non-Jews in the entirety of Palestine in 1890. Clearly, Zionism created a place for non-Jews, counter to Erlander’s slander.

Zionism’s Next Phase According to the NY Times:
Secular Israelis versus Religious Jews

Erlander continued to paint a story of the “new Zionists – religious Zionists” who also seek to displace Arabs:

“In that gap between idealism and pragmatism is the fierce battle now going on in Israel, some 65 years after the founding of the state, about the true inheritors of Zionism. Are they those who hold to a secular and internationalist vision of the nation’s founders, or are they the nationalist religious settlers who create communities beyond the 1967 boundaries and seek to annex more of the biblical land of Israel?”

The article painted a picture of secular Israelis today seeking a pragmatic vision of Zionism within 1949 boundaries (as the Times and left-wing group J Street demand) on one side, and irrational religious Israelis, “settlers [that] are the epitome of a particularism, of localism, and they give a bad name to Zionism,” on the other.

Yet the article continued to ignore basic facts:

Zionism continues to be principally about a haven from Anti-Semitism. The vast majority of people moving to Israel, making Aliyah, are people escaping persecution. The countries that dominate moving to Israel every year are Russia and Ukraine. When things get bad in France, French Aliyah spikes. Almost all of these Jews are not religious and are not moving for religious reasons, similar to Zionism of a century ago.
Jews are moving to Judea and Samaria according to International Law, not the Bible. The “religious settlers” are not seeking to resettle all of the biblical kingdoms of Israel. They are not moving into southern Lebanon, southern Syria or western Jordan which were all part of the Jewish kingdoms. They are moving into those areas that were established in international law in the San Remo Conference of 1920 that outlined that Jews could live throughout the land of Palestine. That land included Judea and Samaria. Just because the Jordanians attacked Israel in 1948, illegally annexed the land in 1950, and evicted all of the Jews counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention, does not mean that these lands are somehow not an integral part of the lands set for a Jewish homeland by international law.
Non-Jews have not been expelled from the West Bank/EGL or Gaza. The contention that the “religious settlers” are continuing this rage of Zionism by displacing yet more non-Jews is absurd. The only people that the Israeli government expelled from their homes were Jews, as happened in Sinai (1982) and Gaza (2005).
“Religious Settlers” are not primitive. Erlander seemed to draw a contrast against the cosmopolitan, pluralistic, secular Israelis involved in art and technology living in Tel Aviv to “religious nationalists.” Erlander would do well to visit Maale Adumim, Efrat and many other “settlements” to see that these “settlers” are more cosmopolitan than many of the people living in Bat Yam, just south of Tel Aviv.

The founders of Zionism in the 19th century knew the sentiment of Dylan Thomas’s poem before he was even born: “do not go gentle into the good night.” They fought against hatred and persecution and set up a liberal democracy in the heart of the illiberal Middle East. Had Zionism flourished earlier, and the Arabs and British not delayed the creation of the State of Israel, perhaps a million Jews would have been saved from the Holocaust.

Today, Jews continue to come to Israel, fleeing persecution. They live throughout Israel and Area C in the West Bank/EGL. They believe in the international law that gave them the right to settle and reconstitute their homeland. Just as they would not tolerate the anti-Semitism from where they left, they do no support the anti-Semitic wishes of a Palestinian Authority that demands land free of any Jews.

Erlander is right that “Zionism was never the gentlest of ideologies,” but he misses the crucial point. Zionism’s rage is against anti-Semitism and persecution; it has never been about displacement.

The gentleness of Zionism, in which “every high tech start-up, every new Thai restaurant and every successful film” flourishes, is found when and where anti-Semitism and persecution are absent. As the world embraces the anti-Semitic credo of Palestinians demanding Jews be barred from living or working in the West Bank/EGL, Israelis will continue to “rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

Related First.One.Through articles:

New York Times’ Tales of Israeli Messianic War-Mongering

A Native American, An African American and a Hispanic American walk into Israel…

Rick Jacobs’ Particular Reform Judaism

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Squeezing Zionism

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

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

Posted on February 8, 2016 by First.One.Through

The BDS Movement (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel and Israeli companies has been going on for several years. According to Professor Eugene Kontorovich, the movement focuses on three main areas: campuses; companies and countries. He notes that the college campus activities get a lot of attention, but have little practical impact. The BDS of specific Israeli companies have more direct financial ramifications on the targeted companies (like Sodastream), while actions by countries can have the most severe impact on the Jewish State.

In that light, it is interesting to note the actions of J Street, which describes itself as a “Pro-Israel” group.

J Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben Ami
(photo: JTA/ J Street)

There is no question that the country with the largest economic and security relationship with Israel is the United States. As detailed in “International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu,” the US is by far Israel’s largest trading partner. Further, Israel relies on the US not only for $3 billion in military aid each year, but protection at the United Nations Security Council.

Therefore, the threat of the United States government putting pressure on Israel is many magnitudes more significant than a group of angry anthropologists on college campuses. Such US pressure could cripple Israel both on a financial front and the security of its people.

And that is exactly what J Street proposes.

January 2011: “[I]f the [UN] Resolution [condemning Israeli settlements] does come to a vote, we urge the Obama administration to work to craft language, particularly around Jerusalem, that it can support condemning settlement activity and promoting a two-state solution.

While we hope never to see the state of Israel publicly taken to task by the United Nations, we cannot support a U.S. veto of a Resolution that closely tracks long-standing American policy and that appropriately condemns Israeli settlement policy.”

J Street advocated that the United States abandon Israel at the UN Security Council, a place where the US is often the only voice of support. The statement above was so reprehensible to many, that even devout liberal politician Gary Ackerman (D-NY) condemned the group and stated that he would have nothing to do with it.

J Street continued:

In September 2014: “J Street urges the United States government to undertake a thorough review of its policy toward Israeli settlements and to announce the steps it will take if Israel goes forward with this decision. As a first step, it should declare now that it is the view of the United States that settlements are not merely “unhelpful” or “illegitimate” but illegal under international law as laid out in the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

There are many leading international authorities (as well as the government of Israel itself) that clearly lay out why the settlements are neither illegal, nor counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, it was the Jordanian annexation of the “West Bank” in 1950 and the expulsion of all of the Jews from the area that was clearly counter to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Not only does J Street not side with the Israeli government in this regard, it “urges the United States government” to penalize Israel at the United Nations security council and elsewhere.

These official policy statements of J Street have implications well beyond angry annoying voices at universities. They put Israel directly at risk.

J Street may make proclamations that they do not support BDS, but their voices and lobbying efforts are actually much more dangerous to the security of Israel.

Raffle to Benefit Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem

Posted on February 5, 2016 by First.One.Through

Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem leads the Middle East in caring for young people.

A bar mitzvah boy is conducting a raffle to help raise monies for the many children who need to stay at the hospital for extended periods of time. The first prize is $1800 towards airfare to/from Israel. Second prize is an ipad mini.

Here is the link to the raffle: Gideon’s Raffle for the children at Shaare Zedek Hospital

The new Wilf Children’s Hospital at Shaare Zedek designed with computer and fun space for children who stay at the hospital for extended periods of time.
(photo: First.One.Through)

The hospital has also been at the forefront of treating wounded Israelis during the current spate of terrorist attacks around Jerusalem. The incidents in 2015 included:

Wednesday, December 23, 2015 2 civilians (3 total) stabbed, one also wounded by police gunfire – Old City, Jerusalem
Monday, December 14, 2015 6 civilians (11 total) wounded in car attack – Jerusalem
Thursday, December 10, 2015 Toddler in car wounded by rock-throwing/broken glass – between Beitar Illit and Jerusalem
Wednesday, December 9, 2015 Soldier and man stabbed – Beit Hadassah, Hebron
Monday, December 7, 2015 Man critically wounded – Hevron
Sunday, December 6, 2015 Police volunteer stabbed, another man wounded in car attack – Jerusalem
Friday, December 4, 2015 2 soldiers wounded in car – north of Ramallah
Thursday, December 3, 2015 Policeman stabbed, wounded by friendly fire-Jerusalem
Sunday, November 29 Woman stabbed at bus stop – Jerusalem
Friday, November 27 5 soldiers wounded in car attack – near Hebron Soldier injured in car attack – Kfar Adumim Junction
Wednesday, November 25 Soldier stabbed – Al Fawwar Junction, South of Hebron
Monday, November 23 Woman stabbed at gas station – near Beit Horon
Sunday, November 22, 2015 Hadar Buchris, 21, knifing attack – Gush Etzion (unable to be revived)
Thursday, November 19, 2015 7 people wounded by gunfire (3 others killed, including Ezra Schwartz from Sharon, MA)-Gush Etzion Junction
Tuesday, November 10 Security Guard stabbed – Light Rail, Jerusalem
Sunday, November 8 Security guard stabbed – Beitar Illit
Friday, November 6 Man stabbed – Supermarket, Sha’ar Binyamin 16 year-old boy shot – Mearat HaMachpelah
Sunday, November 1 2 Border Policemen hit by car – North of Hebron
Wednesday, October 28 Woman stabbed – Gush Etzion
Tuesday, October 27 Soldier stabbed – Gush Etzion Junction
Monday, October 26 Soldier stabbed – Beit Einun Junction, north of Hebron
Friday, October 23 Soldier stabbed – between Gush Etzion & Beit Shemesh
Wednesday, October 21 2 soldiers wounded in vehicular attack – north of Hebron
Friday, October 16 Soldier stabbed – Kiryat Arba
Wednesday, October 14 Woman stabbed – Jerusalem
Tuesday, October 13 6 shooting/stabbing victims from bus attack – Jerusalem 2 victims of car attack/stabbing – Jerusalem
Sunday, October 11 Motorist injured by thrown rocks – Carmei Tzur Policeman burned from attempted suicide bombing – between Jerusalem & Ma’ale Adumim
Saturday, October 10 Soldier wounded by rock – Kiryat Arba 2 men stabbed – Jerusalem Policeman stabbed, he and another hit by friendly fire – Jerusalem
Friday, October 9 3 adults, 2 children injured in car accident caused by thrown rocks – Eli, Samaria Police officer stabbed – Kiryat Arba
Thursday, October 8 17 year-old boy injured by rocks – Kiryat Arba Man stabbed – Jerusalem Man stabbed – Kiryat Arba
Wednesday, October 7 Man stabbed – Jerusalem Female motorist injured by rocks – Gush Etzion
Sunday, October 4 Policeman injured by pipe bomb – Rachel’s Tomb
Saturday, October 3 15 year-old boy stabbed – Jerusalem 2 year-old boy stabbed – Jerusalem

Please donate or participate in the raffle to support this great institution.

Gideon’s Raffle for the children at Shaare Zedek Hospital

The Undemocratic Nature of Fire and Water in the Middle East

Posted on February 5, 2016 by First.One.Through

Israeli President Shimon Peres

Former President of Israel and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres is well liked by the left-wing and even admired by the right-wing in Israel and around the world. His long history of working on behalf of Israel was highlighted by many wonderful quotable phrases. His farewell address in the United States was no different.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, June 2014
(Photo by Kobi Gideon / GPO)

On June 26, 2014, Shimon Peres addressed the US Congress for the final time, receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor. His remarks addressed the strong bonds between the United States and Israel, as well as the threats of terrorism. While cautious, Peres remained an optimist about the chance for peace:

“President Abbas is clearly a partner for peace. He spoke bravely in Saudi Arabia, in Arabic, against the kidnappings, against terror, and for peace. But you cannot put fire and water in the same glass. Hamas is clearly not a partner for peace. Hamas fires rockets at our civilians. They oppose peace and support terror. Finding a way forward is hard. But we must not lose hope. There is no better solution than two states for two peoples.”

Peres’s comments about acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas had mixed reactions in Israeli society: the left believes that Abbas is a partner for peace; while the right-wing believes he is simply a more polite face of terrorism. However, both the right and the left agree that the rabidly anti-Semitic, jihadist, militant, terrorist group Hamas is an enemy of peace. Peres spoke clearly that any Palestinian government that included Hamas was not one that sought peace with Israel.

Peres used an analogy from nature: that fire and water cannot co-exist in the same small space. Similarly in politics, the Palestinian Arabs cannot advance a plan of destroying Israel, while claiming it seeks peace with the Jewish State.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations had a very different view of nature in the Middle East.

Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon

Promoting Reconciliation of Hamas and Fatah: Ban Ki-Moon has pushed aggressively for Hamas to be included in the Palestinian government and in peace talks. Some examples from after the Peres speech to the US Congress:

October 21, 2014: “Palestinians are taking critical steps to forge a united path to the future. This includes an intra-Palestinian reconciliation agreement followed by a historic meeting in Gaza of the Cabinet of the Government of National Consensus.”
April 21, 2015: “I welcome ongoing efforts to promote Palestinian reconciliation. The Government of National Consensus must assume its leadership of Gaza, including control of border crossings.”
January 26, 2016: “Reconciliation is critical in order to reunite the West Bank and Gaza under a single legitimate Palestinian authority.”

This view is diametrically opposed to Peres’s and almost all Israelis.

Hamas has never recanted its founding charter which calls for killing Jews and destroying Israel. It explicitly states that peace talks are not to be pursued. That the only pathway to freeing Palestine is through militant jihad.

Terrorism is Natural: Even while Ban Ki-Moon condemned terrorism, he made excuses for it. During the same January 2016 comments calling for a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation government, he stated:

“as oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

The Secretary General of the UN stated that the victims of terrorism are to be blamed for their own injured status. According to him, it is “human nature” to walk into a family’s home at night and stab and murder all of the inhabitants, including a three month old baby (as Palestinian Arabs did to the Fogel family), because of “occupation”.

Israel’s left-wing champion, Shimon Peres, stated that nature itself dictates that peace and terrorism cannot coexist. As such, Hamas can never be accepted into a legitimate Palestinian government if there will be peace between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs.

Ban Ki-Moon argued that human nature demands freedom from a ruling authority it does not want. Therefore, his proposal is to remove Israeli controls and restrictions from the “West Bank” and Gaza.

But Ban went beyond that.

He demanded that no Jews be allowed to live in either of those lands, even if they legally purchase houses. He demanded that no Jew be allowed to run a business in those areas, even when they hire many Arabs and help the local economy.

Ban does not just argue about the “occupation” of an Israeli military, but against the simple presence of Jews. He stated that any Jew prevents the “the viability of a Palestinian state and the ability of Palestinian people to live in dignity.”

Israelis see no room for an anti-Semitic death group to be part of a future of peaceful coexistence.

The United Nations sees no room for Jews to coexist with anti-Semites.

Peres has urged Israelis to make peace with those that seek peace.

Ban has demanded that Jews abandon their homes to accommodate Jew-haters.

For Israelis, the natural world can be one of peace, where there is respect for Jewish history, culture and people.

For the United Nations, the natural world is rife with anti-Semitism.

A Democratic and Undemocratic Nature

Jews are happy to co-exist with non-Jews. The Israeli government granted all non-Jews citizenship in May 1948. Non-Jews account for 25% of Israeli citizens today.

In a democratic natural world, Jews and non-Jews are not “fire and water.” The only opposites are peace and war. Israel’s mission is to have peace extinguish the fire of hatred, terrorism and war.

The United Nations represents the undemocratic world. As the agency says of itself “When the founders of the United Nations drafted the Charter 70 years ago, they did not include the word democracy. This was hardly surprising. In 1945, still more than today, many of the UN’s Member States did not espouse democracy as a system. Others laid claim to it but did not practise it.”

The undemocratic natural world is one of anti-Semitism, where Jews are the fire to be extinguished. So stated the UN’s Secretary General.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

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

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

The Hollowness of the United Nations’ “All”

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

A “Viable” Palestinian State

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

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

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

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

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

On January 30, 2016, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon made a statement about the Hamas leadership’s intention to continue to attack Israel. His comments clearly spell out why he is unqualified to lead the UN and comment on the “Question of Palestine.”

Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon

From The United Nations: Statement attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on statements by Hamas leadership:

“The Secretary-General is alarmed by recent statements from the Hamas leadership in Gaza about the group’s intention to continue building tunnels and firing rockets at Israel.”

Alarmed? Maybe he should read their charter, watch PalWatch or MEMRI where they describe their intention to kill Israelis and destroy the country time and again. To be alarmed is to be willfully ignorant about the situation and therefore undeserving to comment or be the head of the United Nations.

“Such statements and actions put at risk reconstruction, humanitarian and development efforts by the international community and Palestinian and Israeli authorities. They also do a serious disservice to the long-suffering people of Gaza.”

The building of tunnels and firing rockets into Israel puts ISRAELIS AT RISK of attack and death. It continues the disservice that the world community is complicit in ignoring the SUFFERING OF ISRAELI CIVILIANS. To ignore the threat to Israel in a statement about Hamas is to be complicit in the crimes of Hamas.

“After three devastating conflicts in seven years, people in Gaza and the people of southern Israel deserve a chance for peace and development. Every effort must be made to improve the living conditions of the people of Gaza.”

In a statement about the continued military aspirations of the elected leadership of the people of Gaza to attack and kill Israelis, why isn’t the Secretary-General clearly highlighting the need to improve the living conditions of the people of ISRAEL? Why are those that harbor evil intent, granted good will? Why are the innocent ignored?

“The Secretary-General reiterates his condemnation of terrorism in all its manifestations.”

A condemnation of Hamas barbarity should have clear condemnation of Hamas and its actions, not a general statement about terrorism generally.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations has shown himself unfit to judge the Arab-Israel conflict squarely and fairly.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

The United Nations “Provocation”

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

The Hollowness of the United Nations’ “All”

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

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Henkins

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

The United Nations Audit of Israel

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

An Inconvenient Truth: Palestinian Polls

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

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

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

Netanyahu’s Doctoral Thesis on the Nakba

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

A Satire

In honor of the International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a declaration that the “Nakba was a terrible tragedy for the Palestinian Arabs.” The New York Times, BBC and various media outlets proclaimed in their headlines that Netanyahu had turned a corner from some of his prior comments belittling the “Nakba,” the term that Arabs use to describe their “disaster” when Arabs left their homes and were unable to return after the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-9.

Netanyahu continued about the Nakba that “Israelis understand the pain of being expelled from their homes. Jews were ethnically cleansed from their holiest city, Jerusalem, by Jordanian Arabs. Jews were evicted from their second holiest city, Hebron, after Arabs massacred them in 1929. And the Jewish people were evicted from their ancient homeland in Judea and Samaria, and barred from re-entry, by the Jordanians in 1949. Is there a people on the planet that understands the pain of losing their homes more than the Jewish people? Jews have been targeted for death and eviction by Arabs for a century.”

When Netanyahu was asked to comment not only about evictions, but about being banned from returning to their properties, Netanyahu reviewed how Palestinian Arabs effectively convinced the British to block Jewish immigration to Palestine at the beginning of the Holocaust in 1939, causing hundreds of thousands of Jewish men, women and children in Europe to perish. “We Jews understand being excluded very well.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Holocaust survivors ahead of International Holocaust Remembrance Day. January 26, 2016 (Kobi Gideon/GPO/Flash90)

The comments acknowledging the Nakba were a sharp reversal from Netanyahu’s doctoral study in which he detailed many questions surrounding both the numbers and source of the Nakba. His study concluded that the Arabs in Palestine conspired with the major global parties to funnel billions of dollars in perpetuity to Palestinian Arabs via the United Nations.

Netanyahu’s thesis reviewed the many secret meetings between Arab leaders and the French, British, Americans and Russians that would set the Arabs as the aggrieved party by the UN. The Arab plan pushed the UN to endorse the partition plan of 1947, which the Palestinians would then publicly reject. The UN would then create a unique stand-alone agency, UNRWA, designed to exist forever, as a means of transferring billions of dollars to Palestinian Arabs.

As part of the Arab plan, the United Nations inflated the number of Arab refugees from the 1948 war to 711,000 from the actual 100,000 figure. By inflating the number of refugees, the UN was able to funnel even greater sums of money to Palestinians.

The Arab plan had the further benefit of giving the entire Arab world a scapegoat for their corrupt regimes.

As it turned out, the joint Arab- global powers’ plan worked almost perfectly, aside from a few unexpected results. The UN did not realize that the Arab leadership would ultimately double-cross the UN and steal most of the funds promised to the Palestinian people; and the corrupt financial structure ultimately made Palestinian Arab leadership completely incapable of governing.

The NY Times and BBC did not review the contents of Netanyahu’s doctoral thesis in their articles. However, the Times did have a lead editorial noting Netanyahu as “a man of empathy, and a true moderate who is Abbas’s best chance for a peace partner.”

Abbas did not provide any statement.

Related First.One.Through article:

The NY Times on Abbas’s Change of heart about the Holocaust: Frightening New York Times 4/27/14 article on “Mahmoud Abbas Shifts on Holocaust”

The Holocaust and the Nakba

Other Satires:

Silwan Circulars, Christmas 2014

Palestinian Job Fair for Peace

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

Posted on January 27, 2016 by First.One.Through

Nations of the World Are Silent

On October 1, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York. He rebuked the governments in the room for their indifference to Iran’s call for destruction of the Jewish State. He said that “Iran’s rulers promised to destroy my country, murder my people, and the response from this body, the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing. Utter silence. Deafening silence.” He then paused for 45 uncomfortable seconds, so that the people in the room could better understand how Israel is outraged by the lack of condemnation from governments around the world, against the outrageous comments from Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations
October 2015

The United Nations is Silent

Time and again, the United Nations itself chose to remain silent when Israeli Jews were deliberately attacked. The UN Media Centre wiped the murder of Jews from its records. The global body refused to call the crimes “terrorism.” The UN ignored deaths within Israel. Overall, the United Nations was silent when Israeli Jews were targeted. Was it because the UN considered Israel itself to be a terrorist state so any deaths were actually Israel’s fault? Perhaps the UN was upset that it voted to create a Jewish State in the first place. Whatever the motivation, the UN remained silent.

The United States is Silent

The United States is home to over 5 million Jews, the largest number of Jews after the State of Israel. For much of Israel’s existence, the United States has been the country’s main ally.

However, under the leadership of President Barack Obama, the United States has softened its support for Israel, such as removing pro-Israel positions in the Democratic platform (the US will never deal with Hamas; future borders of Israel will NOT follow the 1949 Armistice Lines; Palestinian “refugees” would NOT settle in Israel; Jerusalem is the capital of Israel). Still, the US government supported Israel’s right to defend itself, even while the US distanced itself from Israel, by not actively supporting Israel in combatting Palestinian terror.

In January 2016, the US – once again – had the opportunity to address the incessant nihilistic death chants from Palestinian Arabs. Not just the incitement from the acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and others in the PA government, but in established PA laws. The decades-old PA law calls for the death penalty for any Arab that sells land to a Jew. While the New York Times refused to print such basic facts for years, the arrest of radical left-wing “activist” Ezra Nawi put the law in plain public sight for everyone to see: the PA not only demands a Jew-free state (an anti-Semitic demand which Obama supports), but will kill to make sure that such anti-Semitic demands are met.

How did the US respond?

US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro
January 2016

Dan Shapiro, the US Ambassador to Israel spoke at an Israeli conference while Israelis buried a young mother who was stabbed and killed by a Palestinian Arab in an unprovoked attack. During his comments Shapiro attacked the Israeli government’s position of allowing Jews to build and buy homes east of the Green Line (EGL), and stated that that Israel was too lax in prosecuting crimes that Israelis commit against Palestinian Arabs.

Shapiro did not comment on the Palestinian law that calls for the death penalty for Arabs that sell land to Jews. He said nothing about Israel’s arrest of Ezra Nawi who helped the PA catch Palestinian Arabs who sold homes to Jews, for the PA to torture.

When John Kirby of the State Department was asked to comment about Shapiro’s statements, Kirby defended Shapiro as repeating the US’s position on Israeli settlements. He remained mum on Palestinian law that called for the death penalty on those that sell land to Jews.

The United States added a silent echo to the ugly mute chorus. No condemnation for those who call for the destruction of Israel. For the killing of Jews. For the killing of those that work with Jews.