Sen. David Carlucci Clarifies Positions on Israel

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

In response to the First One Through article “Will a Reliable Pro Israel Congressional Seat Flip?” New York State Senator David Carlucci’s office reach out to clarify his positions on Israel.

Carlucci co-sponsored New York’s anti-BDS bill. S2430 was introduced for the stated purpose of “prohibit[ing] New York State from contracting with corporations that are boycotting Israel.” The bill has passed the assembly and has not yet been delivered to Governor Cuomo for signature. This is of particular importance as the United Nations recently assembled a list of 112 companies doing business in Israeli territories which will become the basis for global boycott action.
Opposes UN Security Council Resolution 2334. One of the last acts by the Obama Administration was to allow the United Nations Security Council to pass Resolution 2334 which declared Israel’s activities east of the 1949 Armistice Lines to be illegal. Carlucci said the resolution “is an obstacle peace and should be rescinded.“
Recognizes and Supports the 2004 Bush letter to Ariel Sharon. President George W Bush sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004 which specifically stated that final borders in a peace agreement would incorporate “existing major Israeli populations centers” and that in a two-state solution, “the settling of Palestinian refugees [would be] there, rather than in Israel.“
Redo UNRWA. Regarding the UN agency which handles Palestinian refugees, Carlucci said “UNRWA failed the Palestinians and the cause of peace. A new strategy is required to address the humanitarian needs of Palestinians and securing a prosperous future. Meaningful and sustainable investments in Palestinian society and realistic goals for a reinvigorated peace process are essential to bringing stability and growth to the Middle East.“
Supports the Taylor Force Act. The Taylor Force Act was designed to condition financial support to the Palestinians on their ceasing to support terror against Americans and Israelis, including paying stipends through the Palestinian Authority Martyr’s Fund to individuals who commit acts of terrorism and to the families of deceased terrorists.
Opposed the Iranian nuclear deal. Carlucci stated “I oppose re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 for many reasons, including most concerning is that it did not stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, it did not address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, it lacked inspections at military sites, it allowed Iran to continue its research into what could lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and it did not prohibit development of ballistic missiles. Now that we have been removed from the Iran deal, we must restart negotiations as soon as possible with the goal being that Iran never get control of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. These new negotiations must have these parameters in place to guide a productive resolution.“

Sen. Carlucci also added that he supports “a secure Israel to protect our ally and Israeli lives” and will vote to supply Israel with the funding needed to defend itself against nations that want to do it harm.

Significantly, he wants to ensure that Israel is not politicized and that both parties should be involved in the comprehensive work to support a two-state solution.

New York State Senator David Carlucci

Related First One Through articles:

Ever-Elections, Never-Elections and Controlling Elections

Considering Carter’s 1978 Letter Claiming Settlements Are Illegal

American Jewry is Right on Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Adam Schleifer Shares His Positions on Israel

Posted on June 9, 2020 by First.One.Through

Adam Schleifer is running for Congress in New York’s 17th District.

In response to the First One Through article posted on June 5 about the Israel positions of the various Democrats competing for Nita Lowey’s seat, Schleifer’s team updated the candidate’s website with a section called “Strong, Sustainable US-Israel Relationship.” The section contained over 1,000 words and covered Schleifer’s Jewish background, the benefits to America from its relationship with Israel, thoughts about peace in the region and analysis of how best to deal with Iran and its threat to the region.

Schleifer also spoke with me directly about his positions on Israel which are shared in a condensed, summarized fashion below.

First One Through: Question on Jerusalem: As recently as 2008, the Democratic platform stated “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” The statement was contested at the Democratic convention floor of 2012 but approved. In 2016, President Obama let a United Nations Security Council resolution pass which declared that Israel’s control of the eastern half of Jerusalem was “illegal.” However, President Trump later recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the US embassy there. What is your position about the city? Would you move the US embassy out of Jerusalem or change the recognition of the city?

Adam Schleifer: Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. While I am not the president, I will take no action to undue the recognition of Jerusalem nor would I move the US embassy from the city.

FOT: Borders: President George W Bush wrote a letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004 that stated “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Virtually identical language was used in the official Democratic platform of 2008 only to be removed under Obama’s presidential tenure. For his part, Trump stated that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.” What do you think should be the basis for the borders and how does it impact your view of Israelis living east of the Green Line?

AS: I will not dictate or opine where the borders should be. The goal of America should be to get two parties [Israel and the Palestinians] to start negotiating with each other. They need to figure out out a number of details about how to exchange various parcels of land, and how to accommodate the demographic realities of various areas versus the legal claims to the same, including how to get the disconnected occupied territories to become connected by a transit route.

Right now we don’t have good parties in the mix. Arafat walked away from a historic opportunity in 2000 (I was in DC watching with sadness as the deal unraveled) and Hamas is terrible and not a partner for peace. I won’t get into whether I think Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is a good guy or not; that’s not our role. We just need to be constructive in getting the parties talking.

The reality is that under international law most legal opinions conclude that the territories are “occupied” in violation of that law, whatever the historical, moral and practical realities of the situation. It’s also true that the Israeli government’s actions of building settlements in far out places and areas that are almost certain to conflict with an orderly peace process and is a recipe for difficulty both for the Palestinians and Israel to ultimately dismantle.

FOT: Palestinian State: The UN Declaration of Human Rights states that all people should have self-determination, however, the UN declared that Palestinians also have a unique “inalienable right” to sovereignty, a sentiment that no other people in the world have. Do you believe that Palestinians have such inalienable right to have their own country, or just citizenship in some country, whether their own, Israel, Jordan or Egypt?

AS: That is not a useful question. The Palestinians operate and view themselves as having a unique culture and desire an independent state. The reality is that that aspiration will need to be accommodated as a pragmatic matter for a sustainable solution. Many other people similarly have aspirations for statehood, though, and one particularly legitimate additional example in the middle east appears to be the Kurds, who we have failed to stand by after they stood by us, and we should work to see them at least have autonomous regions permitting self-rule and determination of some form.

FOT: UNRWA: Refugees from around the world are managed by the UNHCR, taking care of over 60 million people fleeing war-torn areas, forced to resettle, build shelter and schools. Meanwhile, a distinct UNRWA handles grandchildren of Palestinian refugees who have a long-established infrastructure. UNRWA has bloated itself to provide services for people who are not even descendants of refugees and has arbitrarily extended its mandate to run until the establishment of a Palestinian State, rather than getting these descendants resettled. Do you think UNRWA should be dissolved or folded into the UNHCR?

AS: I have no opinion and would need to explore the issue further. It is clear that the UN has a very troubling double standard for all things related to Israel. Consider the UN Human Rights Committee which condemns Israel while ignoring the brutality of Libya, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Sudan.

FOT: USA as Moderator: Do you believe that the US should be the sole mediator of the peace process or should it be part of the “Quartet” of the European Union, UN and Russia? How should the America’s role change in situations of it acting alone or in concert with others?

AS: The United States is now viewed as weak and ineffective on the world stage because of the current president. I am a big believer of multi-lateralism and will take the UN involvement whenever we can get it. It will lead to reigning in regional chaos and injustice.

The current president of the US unduly relies on personal relationships to manage foreign policy, but such approach cannot endure beyond his tenure. We need to map out policies beyond the particular individuals. We are in a situation now where the US has no credibility and to be effective, you have to have credibility.

Being effective also means being honest. When it comes to Israel, America is a strong friend but being a friend doesn’t always mean being a non-critical friend.

We need to include other parties as part of the peace process and be an honest credible moderator to the parties.

FOT: Iran: What do you think of Iran and the Iranian nuclear deal and the withdrawal from it?

AS: The U.S. cannot allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. It is a malignant autocratic regime. We cannot allow such an autocratic regime to arm themselves. We need to drive a hard bargain for a new and better deal.

More so, the U.S. must get the whole world to empower the people of Iran. Through various means, the U.S. should push for hard sanctions to pressure the regime to make real change towards the rule of law.

FOT: Antisemitism: How do you plan on fighting antisemitism?

AS: Antisemitism is a thread that unites extremists around the world. All forms of extremism are inherently dangerous. In France they self-define as left-wing and in Poland and Hungary they self-define as far right. They are united only in antisemitism.

Education is key to fighting the hatred. Holocaust education is critical, as are instituting new laws like the Hate Crime Prevention Act. We need to be creative with actively fighting against all kinds of antisemitic attacks.

It is worth reviewing Schleifer’s prepared AIPAC remarks which are now on his website.

Adam Schleifer on a trip in Israel

Subscribe to YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook groups: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Will A Reliable Pro-Israel Congressional Seat Flip?

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

Congresswoman Nita Lowey has served in the United States Congress for several decades. Representing New York’s 17th District covering Lower Westchester County and all of Rockland County, Lowey has been and consistent supporter of Israel since she entered Congress in 1989. Now, at age 82, she is retiring.

A long list of Democrats are lining up to compete for her seat. Almost all are quite to the left of Lowey politically, unabashedly “progressive” with the exception of David Carlucci. The candidates’ records and statements on Israel have been quite mixed as well. Below is a summary.

First, the Pro-Israel and Anti-antisemitism candidates: Buchwald and Carlucci

David Buchwald

David Buchwald, 41, is the most aggressively pro-Israel candidate among the Democrats.

He fought actively against the Iran nuclear deal as it left Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons intact. He co-sponsored the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill in the New York State Assembly and notably supported President Trump’s declaration that “the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law.”

Moreover, Buchwald has stated that U.S. military aid to Israel cannot be used “as a bargaining chip” to pressure Israel into making decisions which it feels undermines its security.

New York State Assemblyman David Buchwald

Justin Brasch, a member of White Plains City Council said that “David is by far the most pro-Israel candidate by every measure. He also is the most vocal against Iran due to their support of global terror and the terrorist group Hezbollah.”

Buchwald’s full position paper on Israel is here.

David Carlucci

David Carlucci, 39, is a New York State Senator with an Italian father and Jewish mother. He is probably best known for working across the aisle with Republicans in New York State government for years, often making him an outsider with the current Democratic party pushing to the far left.

Carlucci has been active fighting antisemitism, including introducing the Social Media Hate Speech Accountability Act after Jews in Monsey (in Rockland County) were attacked during Channukah, and a bill that would categorize graffitiing as a hate crime if it targets a person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation. He was particularly appalled by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio calling out the Chasidic community during the pandemic.

Regarding Israel, he is in favor of a two-state solution. He co-sponsored the anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) bill in the New York State Senate and notably supported the decision to move Israel’s capital to Jerusalem. He was critical of a letter sent by Democratic leaders to President Trump opposing Israel applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria. Like Buchwald, he is against any conditioning of aid to Israel.

In regards to the Iranian deal, Carlucci’s campaign office sent me the following to clarify his position:

“I oppose re-entering the Iran Nuclear Deal of 2015 for many reasons, including most concerning is that it did not stop Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, it did not address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, it lacked inspections at military sites, it allowed Iran to continue its research into what could lead to the development of weapons of mass destruction, and it did not prohibit development of ballistic missiles. Now that we have been removed from the Iran deal, we must restart negotiations as soon as possible with the goal being that Iran never get control of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. These new negotiations must have these parameters in place to guide a productive resolution.”

Meh-Israel candidates: Farkas, Fine, Jones and Schleifer.

Evelyn Farkas

Evelyn Farkas, 52, is supported by J Street, a far-left group that was in favor of sanctioning Israel at the United Nations, labeling Jewish Israelis living east of the Green Line as “illegal settlers,” and the Iranian nuclear deal which gave the leading state sponsor of terrorism which calls for the destruction of Israel, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons.

Farkas worked in the Obama administration’s Defense department and has been endorsed by former Secretary of State John Kerry and US Ambassador to Israel, Dan Shaprio.

Not surprisingly, Farkas’s positions on Israel are similar to the Obama administration: in favor of a two state solution and at odds with various Trump initiatives in the region.

Allison Fine

Allison Fine, 55, is also supported by J Street. She is far more left-wing than Farkas, having served as past chair of NARAL, a pro-abortion organization and also less sophisticated about international relations.

Fine views everything through a feminist lens, stating about her run for Lowey’s seat, “this is a woman’s seat and I think it should stay a woman’s seat.” Speaking in defense of the four progressive members of “the squad” who have been critical about Israel, she said “I think we need to support women once they are in office because the level of harassment that elected women receive is far larger than what men receive.”

She has been happy to visit Israel several times and her website states “We must stand with the State of Israel and ensure both economic assistance and political support are never in question.”

Mondaire Jones

Mondaire Jones, 33, is even more alt-left than Allison Fine, endorsed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Rep. Ayanna Pressley and others on the extreme fringe. Not surprisingly, he is also supported by J Street.

Jones viewed Obama’s Iranian nuclear deal as “great” and was strongly opposed to Trump’s withdrawal.

While his website states nothing about Israel, he worked with the Jewish Insider to post his position about the Jewish State. In it he states “I strongly oppose the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.” He opposed Trump’s recognition of Israel’s capital in Jerusalem and believes the city should be divided by Israel and the Palestinians. He does, however, recognize that Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Adam Schleifer

Adam Schleifer, 38, has a background in law as a former US assistant attorney in California and NY State Consumer Protection Regulator. He is most famous for his parents – Leonard, who is the CEO of Regeneron, the Tarrytown-headquartered pharmaceutical giant and Harriet, President of the American Jewish Committee.

Schleifer doesn’t have much to say about Israel other than he disagrees with President Trump’s “style” and doesn’t believe it will create an enduring peace.

He is vocal about combating antisemitism, placing it in the number 7-of-12 slot on his policy goals.

For those people who want to see Nita Lowey’s seat remain in pro-Israel hands, there are really only two choices: David Buchwald and David Carlucci. Democratic primary date is June 23.

Related First One Through articles:

Liberal Senators Look to Funnel Money into Gaza

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

Will the 2020 Democratic Platform Trash Israel?

The Insidious Jihad in America

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Schrodinger’s Cat and Oslo’s Egg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related First One Through articles:

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

The US Recognizes Israel’s Reality

The Shrapnel of Intent

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

The Peace Proposal Monologues

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Green Line Through Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related First One Through video:

The anthem of Israel is JERUSALEM

The Green Line (music by The Kinks)

Judea and Samaria (music by Foo Fighters)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

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

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

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

Pro-Palestinian protest in London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.”

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

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

Palestinian Post-paid Terrorism

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

Mobile subscribers come in two general varieties: pre-paid and post-paid.

Post-paid subscribers pay AFTER they receive service each month. These customers do not know exactly how much they will pay for service due to the variability in usage but have an understanding with the wireless carrier on the basic parameters of $X for Y voice minutes and Z GB of data usage.

In contrast, pre-paid customers pay BEFORE they use the service. Sometimes this is done because the consumer wants to have a defined liability and ensure they are not burdened by overage charges. Pre-paid plans are often used by consumers with poor credit.

In the early days of wireless, there were only post-paid subscribers as the handsets and calling plans were expensive. The cost kept the marketplace limited to only the wealthy and consumers who truly needed the service. To attract the masses, carriers introduced pre-paid plans which were not only much cheaper but avoided the lengthy contracts and background checks. The mobile industry took off.

This is the template the Palestinian Authority has used with terrorism, inverting pre-paid and post-paid to attract the masses.

Post-paid Terrorism for the Masses

In the early days of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the group took a significant amount of time to recruit and train its killers. Money was spent on guns, ammunition and bombs, and considerable time was invested in surveillance, training and planning. The massacre of the Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games, the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre and the numerous airplane hijackings in the 1970’s were carried out by devout fanatics. These were pre-paid terrorist activities with the terrorist group investing a lot upfront, limiting both the number of attacks and PLO membership.

The world changed after the jihadist terrorism against the United States on 9/11/2001. The U.S. pushed the world to fight terrorist groups directly with arms AND by cutting off their source of funding. Even the United Nations got involved.

The impact was felt in Israel.

HAMAS, the Palestinian jihadist terrorist group, was forced to wage war on a more limited budget and use less expensive weaponry to kill Jews including cheap and poorly constructed missiles, bombs attached to balloons and thousands of young men with rocks.

For its part, the Palestinian Authority employs a “pay-to-slay” program, a post-paid terrorism financing plan in which it needn’t directly recruit individuals or invest in armaments for attack. The PA pays the terrorists and their families based on how long they spend in Israeli jails which is correlated to their crimes – more dead Israelis equals more jail time and more money.

This contract is considered sacrosanct. Acting-President of the PA Mahmoud Abbas said “[e]ven if we have only a penny left, we will give it to the martyrs, the prisoners and their families…. We view the prisoners and the martyrs as planets and stars in the skies of the Palestinian struggle, and they have priority in everything.”

Consider Hakim Awad, just 18-years old when he burst into a Jewish family’s home one night while they slept. He stabbed the parents and three children to death, including a three-month-old infant. The PA considers his actions noble and pays his family $14,000 per year. Should Awad live to the age of 80, the PA will pay nearly $2 million to Awad’s family.

Hakim Awad leaving court. He received five life-sentences for murdering five Jewish civilians (Photo: Hagai Aharon)

This system of “pay-to-slay” works well for all the Arab parties. The terrorists and their families get the money directly rather than it going to weapons, and they have clarity that the greater destruction they can inflict, the more money will go to their families. The Palestinian Authority gains millions of terrorists-in-waiting while it maintains that it is not involved in terrorism as the world is accustomed to thinking about terrorism on the basis of pre-paid financing. This allows Abbas to stand at the General Assembly of the United Nations while playing the victim and continue to receive millions of dollars from countries.

Abbas’ post-paid terrorism has worked. Stabbings, rock-throwings and car rammings ballooned after Hamas’s failed war against Israel in 2014. Countries around the world continue to give monies to the PA considering it “humanitarian” support because they are in favor of an independent Palestinian state, even though it is clear that they are funding terrorism. The Palestinian terrorists-in-waiting read about the funds transfers and consequently know their families will be paid well and that they will be honored as heroes in their communities.

In the early days of mobile, post-paid wireless subscribers were considered much more valuable than pre-paid subscribers, as they spent much more money each month and were more loyal, less likely to leave the carrier. That has changed over time with each spending roughly the same amount today.

In terrorism, the dynamics have also converged. The loyalty of post-paid terrorists-in-waiting has matched the devoted jihadists, knowing that the monies and honor are guaranteed.

As long as donor charities and countries continue to fund the Palestinian Authority, the value of the post-paid terrorists will continue to rise and the blood of Israeli Jews will continue to flow.

Related First One Through articles:

HSBC Blocks Payments to US-Designated Terrorist Organization Fundraiser, Interpal

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

The United Nations Must Take Its Own Medicine Re the Palestinian Authority

Empowering Women… To Murder

The New Salman Abedi High School for Boys in England and the Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel Soccer Tournament in France

Liberal Senators Look to Funnel Money into Gaza

While Palestinians Fire 400 Rockets, the United Nations Meets to Give Them Money

Paying to Murder Jews: From Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Palestinian Authority

Related First One Through video:

The 2011 Massacre of the Fogel Family (music by Gorecki)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Even The New York Times Needs to Fire David Halbfinger

Posted on May 8, 2020 by First.One.Through

The New York Times has been growing more anti-Israel and anti-religion for several years. David Halbfinger, the paper’s Jerusalem Bureau chief has a long history of writing some of the most biased articles, leading his colleagues into the abyss.

But even he can stoop to the levels often reserved for Arab media.

On May 8, 2020 he wrote a piece which would have made Josef Mengele blush. The opening paragraph of the article – an article about Israel developing life saving treatments to fight the Covid-19 pandemic – accused the Jewish State of being the modern incarnation of Nazi Germany’s doctor of death. It read:

“The Israeli Defense Ministry’s research-and-development arm is best known for pioneering cutting-edge ways to kill people and blow things up, with stealth tanks and sniper drones among its more lethal recent projects.”

The IDF actually has long history of developing life saving items such as the Iron Dome which intercepts missiles fired by Palestinian and Lebanese Arabs at Israeli civilians. It has developed methods of detecting Hamas terrorist tunnels dug into Israel to abduct and kill Israelis. It’s the only military that has a deliberate missile system without warheads which it uses to warn people in a building to abandon the facility before it gets blown up. ALL DESIGNED TO SAVE THE LIVES OF BOTH ISRAELIS AND THEIR ENEMIES.

But writing a complimentary article about new Israeli inventions to help the entire world was seemingly a task too tall for Halbfinger. He needed to disparage Israel from the start and paint the country to resemble the worst mass murderers of history.

It is not enough to cancel the subscription to the Times. Decent people everywhere must demand the immediate firing of Halbfinger.

Related First One Through articles:

The New York Times Excuses Palestinian “Localized Expressions of Impatience.” I Mean Rockets.

New York Times Pushes the Lie of Israeli Apartheid

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

The New York Times Knows It’s Israeli Right from It’s Palestinian Moderates

A Review of the The New York Times Anti-Israel Bias

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

While Lying About Israel, Democrats Demand Nothing of Palestinians

Posted on May 8, 2020 by First.One.Through

Thirty Democratic politicians under the Obama and Clinton administrations sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee on May 4, 2020. The letter began by completely misleading its audience which led directly into slandering Israel and absolving Arabs of any responsibility.

The letter stated

“Past party platforms have rightly stated a commitment to Israel’s security and included condemnations of threats and actions against our ally, in addition to embracing a two-state outcome. Those platforms have, however, also been nearly silent on the rights of Palestinians, on Israeli actions that undermine those rights and the prospects for a two-state solution, and on the need for security for both peoples.”

The phrase “embracing a “two-state solution” completely misleads a reader to believing that the Democratic party platform as recently as 2008 (pre-Obama) supported the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (1967 “borders”; Arab capital in “East Jerusalem,” repatriation of “refugees”). IT DID NOT. It envisioned a completely different kind of two-state outcome.

Borders: The 2008 DNC platform stated ““All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Today, Democrats talk about the “1967 borders” as the natural orientation of the two-states, but that was not their historic vision because those “armistice lines of 1949” were never designed by the parties at that time or after to become borders.
Jerusalem: The DNC was clear in 2008 that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” But the Democrats today are pushing for Israel to hand over half of its capital including the holiest sites for Judaism.

“Israeli actions” of living beyond the armistice lines including in eastern Jerusalem was something Democrats always supported until the Obama administration changed the party platform. These Obama employees who crafted the letter claim that Jews living freely somehow “undermines rights” of Palestinians. It does nothing of the sort.

The 2008 platform continued that the United States should isolate Hamas (Jimmy Carter still loves the terrorist group) and added that all “refugees” would be settled in a new Palestinian state, not in Israel. Under Obama, the statements were removed.

In 2012 and 2016, the Democratic platform became increasing less supportive and increasingly harsh in its treatment of Israel and has demanded less and less of the Palestinians.

Consider a simple desire from 2008: “a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel.” The new letter makes no requirement of Palestinians living in peace. Instead, it just holds up Palestinian rights:

“The 2020 platform should expressly state a commitment to a resolution of the conflict that ensures both Israel’s security and future as a Jewish and democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens, as well as Palestinian rights, including self-determination, security and freedom. It should include clear opposition to ongoing occupation, settlement expansion and any form of unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank as well as clear opposition to violence, terrorism and incitement from all sides.”

Note that these Democrats seek an Israel that is “democratic with equal rights for all its citizens,” but says nothing about a new state of Palestine and demands nothing.

No demand to abolish the Palestinian law which calls for the death sentence for any Arab selling land to a Jew
No call for Palestine to be a democracy and move away from sharia law
No call for allowing Jews to live throughout the land
No call for allowing Jews to pray at their holy sites
No call for striking the Palestinian law which allows for men to get a light sentence for honor killings of women in their families

Past party platforms never used the word “occupation” as Democrats once understood that international law for the past 100 years encouraged Jews to live throughout historic Palestine, understood that the 1949 Armistice lines were arbitrary and not meant to be a border, and that Israel retook the “West Bank” in a defensive battle. It was only under the watch of these same thirty Democrats who blessed the Arab demand for a Jew-free state and therefore enabled UN Security Resolution 2334 (2016) declaring Jews living peacefully in their ancient holy land as illegal. THEY MADE a basic human right illegal, and now chastise Israel for ignoring their antisemitic actions. #ResistUN

Not only are Democrats standing tall by the horrific Obama decision at the UN, but are pushing forward with attacking Israel and asking nothing of the Palestinians: a sharia-inspired Jew-free state for Palestinians and a state with full equality and no preferences for Jews in Israel which should absorb millions of additional Arabs. It’s a two state solution based on 1.5 states for Arabs and 0.5 of a state for Israel.

Ben Rhodes, Former Deputy National Security Adviser in Obama administration

The letter penned by Obama’s politicians which argued for “a commitment to security, democracy, and human rights,” failed to seek democracy for Palestinians and human rights for Israeli Jews. It demonstrates that Israel is not becoming a wedge issue for American politicians but a symbol of Democrats abandoning the western world. Israel is just the first casualty of the their headlong embrace of non-Democratic antisemitic norms found in countries around the globe.

Related First One Through articles:

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

The Insidious Jihad in America

The United States Should NOT be a Neutral Mediator in the Arab-Israel Conflict

The Joy of Lecturing Jews

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

The Obama Administration Continues to Abandon Israel in Fighting Terror

J Street: Home for Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Peace Americans

Obama’s “Palestinian Land”

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

Obama supports Anti-Semitic Palestinian Agenda of Jew-Free State

Related First One Through video:

The “1967 Borders” (music by The Kinks)

Trump’s “eastern Jerusalem” and Biden’s “East Jerusalem”

Posted on May 7, 2020 by First.One.Through

As people concerned about the Israel-Arab conflict consider the US presidential elections, an important understanding of the two candidates can be found in their articulation of where a theoretical capital of a future Palestinian state would be located.

President Donald Trump announced the US road map to peace In January 2020 which included proposed contours for a two state-solution, the first such third-party proposal since the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. In regards to a Palestinian state, Trump said:

“The Palestinian people have grown distrustful after years of unfulfilled promises — so true — yet I know they are ready to escape their tragic past and realize a great destiny. But we must break free of yesterday’s failed approaches.

This map will more than double the Palestinian territory and provide a Palestinian capital in eastern Jerusalem where America will proudly open an embassy. (Applause.) No Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes. (Applause.)”

The map highlighted areas within the eastern part of the city of Jerusalem which would become a “Palestinian capital.” The phrase “eastern Jerusalem” highlighted that the United States recognized not only that Jerusalem is a single city but that “East Jerusalem” has not existed for over fifty years; it had a brief turbulent life for nineteen years as an artifice of war in the 1948-1967 time period. Those dark years had barbed wire running through the heart of the city with the Jordanian Arabs controlling the eastern portion after they expelled all of the Jews. The Arabs would not let any Jew enter the Old City, even for prayer at Judaism holiest location.

Vice President Joe Biden sees Jerusalem quite differently as can be inferred by his recent comment in May 2020:

“I will reopen the US consulate in East Jerusalem, find a way to reopen the PLO’s diplomatic mission in Washington, and resume the decades-long economic and security assistance efforts to the Palestinians that the Trump Administration stopped.”

Biden referred to “East Jerusalem” as a proper noun as if such city exists and had any legitimacy. He spoke about it as if the United Nations had proposed splitting Jerusalem in 1947 and giving “East Jerusalem” to Palestinian Arabs. He conjured a world in which Israel hadn’t already divided the UN’s “Corpus Separatum” giving the Palestinian Authority the city of Bethlehem in 1996 while it held Jerusalem.

Biden spoke of pure fantasy. He might as well as have mentioned his Obama Administration’s permitting UN Security Council Resolution 2334 to pass which advanced a time-altering, human rights-scoffing principle that Jews living in their holiest city is illegal and an occupation of Palestinian territory.

Vice President Joe Biden addressing AIPAC in a pre-recorded message March 2020

Names highlight a particular narrative, and President Trump’s “eastern Jerusalem” and former Vice President Biden’s “East Jerusalem” underscore how each party understands the nature of the city. One party will deal with the Israel-Arab conflict on the basis of reality and the other in the construct of harmful fiction.

Related First One Through articles:

The Subtle Discoloration of History: Shuafat

“Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”

Abbas’s Harmful East Jerusalem Fantasy

“East Jerusalem” – the 0.5% Molehill

Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem and Joe Biden

Jizyah for Jews in Jerusalem

The Remarkable Tel Jerusalem

The Jews of Jerusalem In Situ

Western Jerusalem’s U.S. Consulate and Embassy

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

The New York Times Inverts the History of Jerusalem