A Deplorable Definition

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

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton described millions of Trump supporters as being a bunch of racists in a campaign fund-raiser in September 2016.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.”

It was quite a charge to label millions of people – all Trump supporters – as racists. Does she really think that none of her supporters are racists also?

Hillary Clinton addressing liberals at a campaign fund raiser
September 9, 2016

There are indeed a good number of racists in the country, belonging to both political parties. But to say that there are millions of them is likely a gross over-statement, unless one uses the new “progressive” approach to labeling someone a “deplorable.”

Extending the Definition of “Racists, sexists, homophobes,
xenophobes, Islamophobes – you name it”

The last several years in American history have witnessed an amazing expansion of name-calling by the radical left, as they have sought to extend the broad parameters of inclusiveness. In particular, the “progressives” have championed two general civic courses for society to learn: self-identity and celebrating diversity.

Self-Identity

In the new “progressive” social dictionary, a person’s self-identity trumps any physical reality. Specifically, self-identity is not simply a matter of the personal definition of self, but the imposition of that position onto society, which must accept and adapt to that person’s preference.

Consider the case of Rachel Dolezal in June 2015, a white woman who headed the Spokane, WA chapter of the NAACP. She argued that she “identified as black,” and rose to become head of a local minority organization. Some progressives were happy to welcome her to the cause of black-empowerment, while others were not willing to grant her a new self-defined racial make-up, as doing so would undermine the fight against the “structures of white empowerment.” This was actually a matter of serious debate and discussion.

The case of transgender people impacted Americans on a broader scale than a local Washington group. In May 2016, the Obama administration passed a law that public schools must allow students to use restrooms of their “gender identity.” This ruling impacted millions of children in school. Young girls would now be in a position of changing in a locker room with a person who identified as a woman, even though he had XY chromosomes and male genitalia.

This was too much for wide swaths of America.

When Gov. Pat McCory of North Carolina fought to block the transgender ruling, the progressive community went on a rant that he was a homophobe and against the LGBT community. Various artists and organizations began to boycott the state in solidarity with the progressive ruling.

These days, progressives quickly label people who choose not to recognize self-identity over biology, as racists and homophobes. Add more people to the “basket of deplorables.”

Missing the Celebration

Another way that Hillary Clinton may have been able to reach her millions of people in her “basket of deplorables” was by including people who do not “celebrate diversity” the way that she envisions.

In Clinton’s opening remarks during her second debate with Trump in October 2016 she used that phrase twice:

“We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity”
“we will respect one another and we will work with one another and we will celebrate our diversity”

What could Clinton have had in mind?

In August 2015, a court in Colorado ruled against a bakery that would not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery owner claimed that while he would sell anything to a gay couple, making a specific “gay” wedding cake went against his Christian values. However, it seemed that the baker’s opinion went against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s 2014 ruling that dictated that he must create cakes for gay couples.

The ruling put conservatives in a rage.

Questions arose whether the bakery must also create cakes in the shape of a swastika if so ordered by a patron. Would a vegetarian store have to serve meat? A kosher store be forced to open on Saturday? A tattoo artist inscribe something they considered personally offensive?

Conservatives wanted to understand whether the line defining discrimination had moved.

If a store owner was willing to sell anything in the store to anyone who sought to purchase it regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or anything else, how can there be discrimination? To force a company or store owner to create something that is against their beliefs is a completely different hurdle.

The progressives were nonplussed. Of course the store owner should celebrate the gay wedding. To do otherwise would be homophobic.

If that case seemed too narrow and unusual, consider the case of Hobby Lobby that went to the Supreme Court in 2014. Hobby Lobby had fought for the right to not fund contraceptives in the company’s employee health coverage plans, as it offended their Christian beliefs. The court narrowly ruled in the company’s favor.

Millions of people either applauded or cursed the ruling.

Before you could blink, the progressives had minted millions of new “homophobes” and “racists” that disagreed with how to celebrate diversity.

Diversity is part of what makes America great, similar to free speech. We are a better country for having a rich tapestry of people with different backgrounds, races, religions and colors, the same way the country benefits from people having different opinions and approaches to life.

However, the same way we vigorously defend the right of free speech, we are free to disagree and ignore the views completely. As a friend of Voltaire once said: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

That should be the logical approach to “celebrating diversity” as well. Every person has the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies and lives, but not to force people to endorse or promote those personal decisions.

That does not seem to be the stance of progressives regarding diversity today. They do not just simply seek a world without discrimination, they want an America that endorses and celebrates their progressive stances. Woe unto the person who didn’t cheer Caitlyn Jenner (fka Bruce) winning the Arthur Ashe Courage award.

There are only two choices in a “progressive” society: accept, adapt and celebrate the new progressive agenda OR be labeled a “deplorable.”

And in the likely President Clinton future, either be fired, boycotted or hauled to jail. She made clear that you are not part of her “America.”

Related First.One.Through articles:

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Pride. Jewish and Gay

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

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

Everybody likes to count. Everyone wants to matter.

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

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

Theoretically.

The Shame of the American No Vote

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

Compare that voter turnout to other democracies:

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

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

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

The Only Protest: Voting the Libertarian Party

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

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

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

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson

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

He cannot win.

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

You pay taxes. Get up and vote!

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

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

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

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

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

-Patrick Henry (1736-1799)

Related First.One.Through articles:

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

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

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

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

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

Nazi Germany

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

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

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

ISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian Arabs

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

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

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

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

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

Ladies and Gentlemen,

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

This is child abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related First.One.Through articles:

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

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

Palestinians of Today and the Holocaust

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Elie Wiesel on Words

Posted on July 3, 2016 by First.One.Through

“Most people think that shadows follow, precede or surround beings or objects. The truth is that they also surround words, ideas, desires, deeds, impulses and memories.”

Elie Wiesel (1928-2016)

Author and Nobel Prize Winner, Elie Wiesel

The Holocaust of the Jews in Europe was one of the most brutal acts of inhumanity in the history of the world. Not only did an elected government murder its own defenseless citizens, it tortured them and enlisted other citizens to eradicate and humiliate the Jews.

The destructive actions of Nazi Germany led the United Nations to create the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948. It was designed to protect the basic human rights of all people, not just an elected majority. The opening article declares: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” and goes on to enumerate various human rights. Article 7 builds on that theme:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

Decades later, the United Nations looked for ways to combat the emergence of global terrorism, and on September 8, 2006, the UN General Assembly adopted the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Similar to the UDHR, it recognized the threat of incitement:

“work to adopt such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in accordance with our obligations under international law to prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct.”

The United Nations advanced the position that actions do not live in a tight bubble. Words lead to actions, whether discrimination, terrorism, or even the Holocaust.

Elie Wiesel on Words

There have been many people who worked to place a spotlight in the shadow of the Holocaust, such as Simon Weisenthal (1908-2005), who fought to bring Nazis to justice. Elie Wiesel, who passed away yesterday, had a different path for combatting the horrors of the Holocaust. He wrote about it.

Over the course of dozens of books, Wiesel wrote about his personal experiences surviving concentration camps, as well as faith, God and humanity. He understood the power of his words to help create a better world, just as he understood and experienced how words can create a vicious, violent reality.

“Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds.”

I’m a teacher and a writer; my life is words. When I see the denigration of language,
it hurts me, and it’s easy to denigrate a word by trivializing it.”

Elie Wiesel

Wiesel often spoke at conferences about his experiences, and sought to educate people about words, thoughts and ideas. He believed that words could be creative agents for the speaker, as well as for those who heard the message.

In 1999, Wiesel recalled how American soldiers liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, including himself as a young man. For that action, and years living in the United States, he would be forever grateful. For him, the act of being grateful was not simply a byproduct of another’s action: it was an action in itself, and speaking about gratitude, was an important message:

“Gratitude is a word that I cherish.
Gratitude is what defines the humanity of the human being.”

Wiesel believed in the power of words to heal, but he also understood its destructive powers. He felt that too often mankind hid from its responsibilities.

“Human beings should be held accountable.
Leave God alone. He has enough problems.”

One of the greatest threats to humanity, according to Wiesel, was not just the negative incitement to violence that the United Nations addressed in 1948 and 2006, but the threat of the vast masses who say nothing; who are indifferent to the words and terrible actions of evil doers.

“The opposite of love is not hate. It’s indifference.”

“Indifference is not a beginning, it is an end. And, therefore,
indifference is always the friend of the enemy…
Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.
And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century’s
wide-ranging experiments in good and evil.”

The world appreciated the efforts of Wiesel, and awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986 for “his message …of peace, atonement and human dignity.”

The First.One.Through blog and channel are about Judaism, Israel and the United States of America. The messages it conveys are that words matter: not just blatant incitement to violence, but even subtle forms of discrimination, as well as positive, constructive words. The words and videos are not made so that the producer has a voice, but for those that read and watch the material, to be positive catalysts by forwarding the anonymous pieces on to others.

We mourn the loss of Elie Wiesel, an advocate who advanced the cause that words matter, whether negative, positive, or the bitter lack thereof.

Related First.One.Through articles:

“An anti-Semitic Tinge”

“Tinge” Two. Idioms for Idiots

The Termination Shock of Survivors

Names and Narrative: Genocide / Intifada

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

William Shakespeare once wrote “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.” The suggestion of Juliet’s comment to Romeo was that the name given to a person or a thing is less significant than the essence of what that person or item is. The famous phrase is often repeated; it is a widely-held belief in the western world: essence trumps labels.

It is therefore surprising that so many concentrate efforts to precisely label things. Consider the term “genocide,” which the United States government just used for only the fourth time.

ISIS Committing Genocide

On March 17, 2016, US Secretary of State John Kerry defined the actions of the Islamic State/ ISIS as “genocide.” He stated that “in my judgment, (ISIS) is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control including Yazidis, Christians and Shiite Muslims.” Kerry made such declaration after the US House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution stating that ISIS was committing a genocide against Christians in Syria and Iraq, just days before. Their action followed the European Union designating the killings as a genocide in February.

Does labelling the actions of ISIS a “genocide” change anything? Will the United States be forced to take action to stop the brutal slaughter of Christians and other minorities by these jihadists? No.

Will ISIS be so upset by the declaration that it will stop killing people? No.

Senator Marco Rubio noted as such when he said “That it took so long for the administration to arrive at this conclusion, in the face of unspeakable human suffering, defies explanation. At long last the United States is no longer silent in the face of this evil, but it would be travesty if we were to mistakenly take solace in this designation, if the designation did not then yield some sort of action.”

Possible actions could include: pushing for the restoration of property and lands taken; offering aid and asylum to those being persecuted. It may also mean that the US must take action according to the Genocide Convention which was adopted after World War II. Article I of that Resolution specifically states that genocide is a crime “to prevent and to punish.”

Islamic State executing prisoners

The Definition and Roadmap to Genocide

The Genocide Convention enumerates what constitutes a genocide in Article II.
“[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births with the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

These actions are clearly being taken by the Islamic State against the Yazidis.

A group called “Genocide Watch” described a multistep pathway in which many genocides unfold. The pathway includes:

Classification
Symbolization
Dehumanization
Organization
Polarization
Preparation
Extermination
Denial

In addition to labelling the pathway to genocide, the authors of this list enumerated actions that society could implement to prevent a genocide from happening during each phase. For example, in the case of “Organization,” they suggest that “membership in these militias should be outlawed. Their leaders should be denied visas for foreign travel. The U.N. should impose arms embargoes on governments and citizens of countries involved in genocidal massacres.”

While people may agree or disagree with the pathway to genocide enumerated by Genocide Watch, it is a useful tool to examine evil intent as it unfolds in some societies, and some potential remedies.

Palestinian Intifada or Genocide

The Palestinian Arabs have launched numerous wars, riots and “intifadas” since the world approved the reestablishment of a Jewish homeland in the holy land in 1920. The Arab activities over these almost 100 years can be benchmarked against the definition and roadmap of genocide described above.

Classification, is the deliberate use of ethnic and racial divisions in a society to promote intolerance. Muslim-majority countries often rule with unique systems of laws, where ethnic and religious minorities are given a “dhmmitude” status. These dhimmis have secondary status in society. When Islam invaded the holy land in the seventh century, they gave the indigenous people the option of converting to Islam, dying, or living in dhimmitude.
The Arabs of EGL (east of the Green Line) extended the pariah classification of Jews when they evicted all of them from the region including the Old City of Jerusalem in 1949. The Jordanians granted all people in the area citizenship, but explicitly excluded any Jews. To this day, Palestinian Arab leadership has called for a country to be devoid of any Jews, and has official laws that call for the death sentence for any Arab caught selling land to a Jew.
Symbolization, is the use of special symbols like the yellow star that Nazis forced Jews to wear. The Palestinian Arabs have no authority over any Jews so such comparison is not apropos, at this time.
Dehumanization of Jews is a something that Palestinian Arab media and leadership does repeatedly. Actions include calling Jews the “sons of apes and pigs“.
Organization is the assembly of special groups and militias to carry out the killings. This is a Palestinian Arab specialty, as they have more terrorist entities than any other group in the world. They include: Abu Nidal; Hamas; Palestine Liberation Front; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine; PFLP- General Command; and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, to name a few.
Polarization includes broadcasting hate propaganda and the targeting of moderates. MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch have hundreds of examples of Palestinian hate propaganda. The Hamas Charter calls against any negotiation with Israel. Palestinian leadership assassinates anyone considered collaborating with Israel.
Preparation includes limiting where people can live and identifying them for death. As noted above, the “moderate” Palestinians call for removing all Jews from EGL/Judea and Samaria, while the more popular and extreme Palestinians openly call for targeting Jews for death and wiping out Israel in its entirety.
Extermination has been an ongoing Arab effort since the riots of the 1920s and 1930s, to the war to destroy Israel in the 1940s, and the wars and “intifadas” of the past two decades.
Denial only exists after the genocide is complete, which fortunately has not happened to the Jewish State. An example of genocide denial can be best captured by the “moderate” acting-Prime Minster of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial, and the champion of Hamas, the Turkish leader Recep Erdogan who continues to deny the genocide of Armenians to this day.

The Palestinian war against Israel fits the UN’s definition of genocide as well. Can the Palestinians claim they are simply “resisting” Israel and “resorting” to violence?

Killing Jews has been going on since 1920. Today the actions are with knives and cars. In 2014 it was with missiles. In 2002 it was with bombings. The focus on killing a subset of Israelis – the Jews – is made clear in Palestinian founding documents which include such statements as:
1. “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious….”
2. “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews“
3. “In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised…”
4. “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people…”
5. “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.“
Causing serious bodily and mental harm is also part-and-parcel of the attacks. The dehumanization (mentioned above), denying Jewish history in the holy land and the rights to live in their holy land are also forms of inflicting mental harm.
As noted above, Palestinians have repeatedly tried to destroy Israel. The wars of 1948 and 1967 were intended to destroy Israel completely. Terrorism has targeted Jewish schools, synagogues and everywhere that people live.
The Palestinian Arabs have not been able to enforce items 4 and 5 under the UN definition of Genocide as they have not have sufficient control over Jews.

Whether by the United Nations own definition, or the pathway described by Genocide Watch, it is clear that the Palestinians are actively trying to engage in a genocide of the Jews in the Middle East. According to an ADL poll, Palestinian Arabs are almost 100% anti-Semitic.

Murder in Synagogue in Har Nof neighborhood of Jerusalem
November 2014 (photo: Israel Government Press Office)

Actions to be Taken

Genocide Watch recommends embargoes and denying visas to genocidal groups like Hamas. The United Nations is mandated by the Genocide Convention to “to prevent [massacres] and to punish [those committing and inciting such actions].” And what has the United Nations done with the Palestinian Arabs? The opposite.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has pushed for a Palestinian reconciliation government that includes the terrorist group Hamas
The UN promises Palestinian Arabs that they will all get to move into Israel
The UN emphasizes Palestinian victims while it ignores Israeli victims
The UN pushes for this anti-Semitic group to get their own country and become a member of the UN
The UN Secretary General pushes to end the blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza
The UN gave the podium and recognition to Mahmoud Abbas, who blamed Jews for the Holocaust in his doctoral thesis, and then added to the insult, claiming from that UN platform that Jews were committing a genocide against Palestinians

The UN is supposed to fight to prevent genocide. However, when it comes to Palestinian Arabs, the organization either chooses to not recognize the vileness of Palestinian actions, or it simply forgives their activities, in the belief that Arab self-determination will pacify their blood lust beyond their new borders.

If one chose to be more “generous” about the UN’s actions and statements regarding Palestinian Arabs, it is that the world wants to prevent an inevitable genocide by Palestinian Arabs against the Jews, so it supports enforcing anti-Semitic edicts and evicting Jews from their homes and businesses in Judea and Samaria. Give the Palestinian Arabs their Jew-free state, and prevent a large scale genocide.

What’s in a Name?

ISIS has been slaughtering minorities for a long time, and only in March 2016 did the United States opt to call the brutality a “genocide.” Will the new designation of “genocide” make people and governments take a stand against the racist jihadist slaughter?

The world has used Palestinian terminology of their war against the existence of a Jewish State, calling it an “intifada,” or an uprising. In a similar vein, the UN refers to Arabs “resisting” Israel and the New York Times says that Hamas “resorts” to violence. Arab violence and incitement get a pass.

The labels and terms do not conceal the murders or bold statements that Hamas declares in its charter and its leaders call out today. They seek a genocide of the Jews and Jewish State. Yet their genocidal movement is labeled in soft reactionary language.

Do names and labels matter?

If people called the ISIS campaign in Iraq and Syria an “intifada,” would they consider that their goal of a Sunni state is legitimate? Would the world embrace the eviction of Christians from their homes in Iraq, so the Islamic State can be self-governing in a new caliphate?

If the world acknowledged the evil of the anti-Semitism of the Palestinian Arab mission to ban Jews from living in their homes, and their mission to drive Jews from the holy land, and called their attacks a “genocide,” would they demand an end to Hamas instead of including it in a reconciliation government?

Will a label produce an action? Or is a designation simply a conclusion? A statement of opinion of right versus wrong; good versus evil.

Perhaps the United States will take new actions against the Islamic State, and actively protect the persecuted, now that they have taken to calling the actions of ISIS a “genocide.”

Maybe the pro-Israel community can stop calling the Palestinian Arab attacks an “intifada,” and clearly call out the “genocide” and put an end to the war on the Jewish State.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

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

UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

Names and Narrative: Palestinian Territories/ Israeli Territories

Names and Narrative: The West Bank / Judea and Samaria

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

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.

As Simon and Garfunkel sang in 1964 “Silence, like a cancer grows.“

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

Obama’s Select Religious Compassion

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Posted on December 31, 2015 by First.One.Through

Hillary Clinton is no FDR

In October 2015, the Democratic presidential candidates held a debate. The debate moderator quoted a line from Franklin Delano Roosevelt when he ran for president in 1932 “judge me by the enemies I have made,” and asked the candidates to describe enemies they are most proud of. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded “well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians, probably the Republicans.” This response drew huge applause from both the Democratic audience and the left-wing media.

It was nice of Clinton to mention at least one foreign entity when she recalled her enemies. After all, she was Secretary of State for four years during the War on Terror. However, I guess she felt that she did not do a very good job fighting Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram or other radical jihadist groups to mention any of them. She certainly did not want to draw attention to her handling of Libya where she overthrew the government and then let the Islamic State take over the country. Or the way she oversaw leaving Iraq, letting the Islamic State take over that region. Or her refusal to engage in Syria to let Syrian leader Assad kill hundreds of thousands of his own people… and cede some of that country to the Islamic State too.

The radical jihadists probably view Clinton as their best friend.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with Libyan soldiers declaring victory,
October 2011 (photo: Reuters)

Clinton did not highlight foreign enemies because they got the better of her. The one foreign entity that she mentioned was Iran, where she ultimately supported a deal that left the Iranian nuclear infrastructure intact.

No, Clinton mentioned DOMESTIC enemies. She mentioned the NRA (the National Rifle Association) which fights to protect the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. The right that the NRA defends have arguably much greater standing than Clinton’s favored group, Planned Parenthood (which she loudly defended in her remarks), which performs and advocates for procedures that are not specifically enumerated in the U.S. constitution.

Clinton’s calling out of Republicans as an enemy was also telling. Was she targeting 41% of American citizens, or just the Republicans elected to government office?

In a two-party system such as the United States, the democracy requires each party to exist. The other party is not an enemy which seeks to harm the country that must be vanquished. It is a counter-party with a different set of priorities and/or policies to govern. Each party serves an important and essential role in balancing budgets and laws to avoid a run-away system of governance by executive fiat.

Yet the person with arguably the most experience in government of any of the presidential candidates, believes the worst enemies she has encountered are: a group that tries to defend the U.S. constitution; and either half of the country or the other political party that enables America’s democracy to exist.

Perhaps Clinton should familiarize herself with the rest of FDR’s 1932 speech in which he also said “we are not Democrats, we are not Republicans; we are a people united in a common patriotism…. My friends, my policy is as radical as American liberty. My policy is as radical as the Constitution of the United States.”

Today’s leading liberal put fellow Americans in her crosshairs. Her battle plan is to shape a democracy of her liking, bending to her interpretation of law.

Liberal American Jews’ Number One Enemy is Israel

American Jews tend to vote Democratic in presidential elections, as roughly 70% of Jews are registered Democrats. J Street, a left-wing group did a poll in September 2015 that concluded that 68% of Jews would vote for Hillary Clinton (the 68% figure would actually be the worst showing for a Democrat amongst Jewish voters since Michael Dukakis secured 64% of the Jewish vote in 1988).

Regarding the U.S.A., many liberal Jews focus their efforts on attacking conservative American policies. When it comes to Israel, liberal Jews are twice as likely as conservative Jews to berate the Jewish State.

In October 2013, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll with the following findings:

50% of Republican Jews had a very strong emotional attachment to Israel, compared to 25% for Jewish Democrats
67% of Republican Jews feel that Israel was given to Jews by God, while only 30% of Democratic Jews felt that way
Meanwhile 56% of Jewish Democrats felt that Jewish “settlements” in Judea and Samaria hurt Israel’s security, while only 20% of Republican Jews considered Jews living in homes east of the Green Line a security threat
Under President Obama, 66% of Republican Jews felt the US was not supportive enough of Israel, while 62% of Democrats thought that Obama had it just right

J Street pushed very aggressively against the current Israeli government run by Likud’s Benjamin Netanyahu as detailed in “The Fault in our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech” including advocating that the U.S. government should vote against Israel at the UN Security Council.

Like J Street, the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz held a conference in the United States in 2015, along with the liberal group the New Israel Fund, NIF. The HaaretzQ conference included peculiar (alarming?) demonstrations of removing the Israeli flag from the stage as it offended some speakers, and a Haaretz columnist describing Jews who move to Israel as committing a “crime”, as Jewish Aliyah should be illegal. That line received wide applause from the liberal crowd.

Palestinian Authority member, Saeb Erekat, speaks at the Haaretz and New Israel Fund conference in Roosevelt Hotel, NYC, on December 13, 2015. Photo by Amir Levy/Flash90 *** Local Caption *** ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????????

Palestinian Authority member, Saeb Erekat, at the Haaretz and New Israel Fund conference in NYC, on December 13, 2015. (Photo by Amir Levy/Flash90)

Another left-wing group, Jewish Voice for Peace, JVP, claims to advocate for “social justice, equality, human rights, respect for international law, and a U.S. foreign policy based on these ideals.” The group’s interpretation of their mission is that Israel, by its very nature as a Jewish State, cannot meet these ideals, so their mission is to push the U.S. to dismantle the Zionist project. JVP’s 2015 conference loudly supported the BDS, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement of Israel.

Even the president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America, a less radical liberal Jewish group, described a handful of Jews living in Hebron in just 3% of the city as a “self-imposed existential threat” to the country.

Liberals have become convinced that most Jews and the Jewish State are the enemies of peace. It’s a line familiar to anyone that has read the Hamas Charter.

Recently, liberal groups have focused their attention on checking off each of Natan Sharansky’s “3 D Test” of anti-Semitism: demonization; double standards; and delegitimization.

Demonizing the Israeli Defense Forces, as groups like NIF fund Breaking the Silence
Double standards for Israel, the most liberal country for a thousand miles in any direction, as JVP reserved its criticism, condemnation and calls for divestment only against Israel
Delegitimization, as the Haaretz conference and speakers sought to remove Jews and Jewish symbols from the land

Jewish liberals think like Hillary Clinton: the enemy is from within, and must be stopped by all measures possible.

Conclusion

Tuvia Tenenbom wrote a book in 2015 called “Catch the Jew!” where he assumed a Sacha Baron Cohen/Ali G/ Borat kind of persona in Israel and the West Bank. At times he pretended to be Jewish, Christian or Muslim, and sometimes German or Israeli. He was a “Master Agent” and donned whatever role would get people to open-up and speak freely about their thoughts about Israel, Palestine, Jews and Arabs.

Tenenbom’s book spared no one. He saw racism and petty-mindedness in every corner of the Holy Land. The food and land received the accolades, while the residents of the land and consumers of the food were roundly criticized.

However, Tenenbom’s conclusion broke the region into shades of black: while he cringed at Jewish and Arab racism, he at least understood it. There’s a selfish motivation to wanting an Arab-free or Jew-free country. However, he viewed the liberal Europeans who fund NGO’s to “Catch the Jew” as a more vile form of racism, a deeper shade of black. How racist can one be to travel over a thousand miles to criticize Jews?

But the darkest shade of black, the worst kind of person to Tenenbom, were the self-haters. Groups like Rabbis for Human Rights and individuals like Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy were skewered the most. Tenenbom concluded that Germans do not have to openly be anti-Semitic anymore; they can just fund self-hating Jews and let them destroy Israel by themselves:

“If logic is any guide, Israel will not survive. Besieged by hate from without and from within, no land can survive for very long.”

Liberals often laugh at conservative Americans who proudly wave their flag. I used to think it was because liberals thought conservative Americans to be primitives who “cling to religion and guns” as Senator Barack Obama said when he ran for office in 2008. However, in 2015, it became clear that liberals do not look down in a condescending manner at fellow countrymen, but stare across their neighbor’s yard through a rifle scope.

In 2015, liberals declared that the enemy is from within. What battles will that bring in 2016?

Related First.One.Through articles:

A Disservice to Jewish Community

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

Joe Biden Stabs a Finger at Israel

Parallel and Perpendicular Views of Iranian Nuclear Deal

Rick Jacobs’ Particular Reform Judaism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Full page NIF ad in The Jewish Week, November 20, 2015
claiming those opposed to NIF have an “ultranationalist agenda” and implying
that Israel without NIF intervention would be an illiberal, racist country

Memory and Responsibility in Germany

Posted on December 23, 2015 by First.One.Through

Time magazine named Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany as its 2015 Person of the Year. She was awarded the honor principally due to her handling of the Greek debt crisis, and the refugee wave overwhelming Europe. In each crisis, she was given credit for not only being tough and fair, but prevailing in keeping the European Union together when each situation threatened to tear the EU apart.

Cover of Time Magazine with Angela Merkel
2015 Person of the Year

Merkel also shaped a subtle message over the year: the role of memory and responsibility for individuals and countries.

Personal Actions to Forget

A person’s “Right to be Forgotten” in online searches dates back many years. The “1995 Data Protection Directive” included a clause that an individual had the right to have certain information deleted once it was no longer relevant. That Directive underpinned a 2010 complaint by a Spanish citizen to a local newspaper and Google that personal information that showed up in searches should be removed or altered since the information was no longer correct.

In May 2014, the EU courts ruled that people have some rights to be forgotten, particularly if the information was no longer relevant (a financial hiccup that was fully resolved). The court determined that it would review personal complaints on a case-by-case basis.

In September 2015, France pushed Google to read the EU court ruling broadly, such that the search engine would need to apply individual requests coming from Europe globally, and not limit the “Right to be Forgotten” to searches within Europe. Europeans cherished their privacy, and wanted their protections everywhere.

National Activities to Remember

In October 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a speech in which he suggested that the idea to kill the Jews in Europe in the 1930s came from the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. While Adolf Hitler may have sought to rid Europe of Jews, it was al Husseini that suggested the “Final Solution.”

German Chancellor Merkel quickly squashed that interpretation of history. Her spokesperson said “All Germans know the history of the murderous race mania of the Nazis that led to the break with civilization that was the Holocaust…. This is taught in German schools for good reason, it must never be forgotten. And I see no reason to change our view of history in any way. We know that responsibility for this crime against humanity is German and very much our own.”

In an environment where courts were allowing people the “right to be forgotten,” the head of Germany stepped forward to declare that there are things that must never be forgotten. To forget history would ignore responsibility. Such action should never be permitted when the activities were so widespread and heinous, such as Germans drive to exterminate the Jews.

Memory and Responsibility.
Punishment and Forgiveness

In July 2015, history and memory overlapped in Germany.

While Google pushed back against a global order to permit the “right to be forgotten”, two events occurred: a German court found a 94-year old German sergeant from Auschwitz guilty of accessory to 300,000 murders; and over 2,000 Jews from around the world came to Berlin to compete in the Maccabi Games in the same forum as Hitler hosted the 1936 Olympics.

The intersection in time of these events underscores the role that Germany has tried to achieve regarding memory and responsibility, and its ramifications.

While modern Europe sought the right of an individual to escape from being tainted with stale information, Germany made clear that a society must always remember its own past. If some information was no longer relevant as the past situation was fleeting and rectified, perhaps that could be forgotten. But there are actions that can never be undone, and therefore never removed from consciousness. Memory demands taking direct responsibility, even decades later.

Germany’s active accounting for its actions paved a path for reconciliation with Jews and the Jewish State of Israel today. That 2,000 young Jews would return to the very center of the hatred that sought to exterminate them and their families, reveals how memory coupled with responsibility can lead to forgiveness.

Times Magazine honored Merkel with the person of the year award for resolving crises. In the Greek debt crisis she held firm that Greece could not escape its debt and irresponsible fiscal behavior. In forcing Greece to confront its past and alter its future behavior, she paved a path for the EU to forgive some of the Greek debt and remain part of the EU. She similarly showed that she held her own country and people responsible for its own gross failings.

It is a lesson for the world to value as it leaves the year 2015.

Related First.One.Through articles:

A country that will not assume responsibility for its role in the Holocaust: Austria’s View of Kristallnacht

Persecuting the “Other”: The End of Together

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

“Jews as a Class”

Posted on December 10, 2015 by First.One.Through

In December 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump announced his intention to impose a ban on all Muslims coming into the United States in response to various terrorist attacks done by militant radical jihadists. The question of whether such an action could be legally and practically enforced made historians look back to the treatment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II. However, there is a better reference point for singling out a religious group, which happened 153 years ago this week.

General Grant Expelled the Jews

In the heat of the American Civil War, Major General Ulysses S. Grant was eager to establish military advantage. One of the ways he sought to accomplish this task was to curtail illegal smuggling of cotton and other goods out of the South which helped finance the Confederate’s war efforts. One group that Grant saw as being particularly involved in the trade was the Jews.

As such, on December 17, 1862 Union General U. S. Grant issued General Order No. 11 which stated:

“The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the Department [of the Tennessee] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

Post commanders will see to it that all of this class of people be furnished passes and required to leave, and any one returning after such notification will be arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners, unless furnished with permit from headquarters.

No passes will be given these people to visit headquarters for the purpose of making personal application of trade permits.

By order of Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant”

As clearly spelled out, the order singled out one minority group – in its entirety – to be expelled from their homes within Grant’s territory (western Tennessee, Kentucky and Mississippi). This order continues to stand as the most anti-Semitic act by the US government to this day.

Jonathan D. Sarna’s book on Grant Expelling Jews in the Civil War

The Objection

As detailed in Jonathan D. Sarna’s book “When General Grant Expelled the Jews,” there were many objections to Order No. 11 at the time:

Treat smugglers as individuals. While there were certainly Jewish smugglers profiting from the war, American laws require action against the people who actually commit the crime, and in some cases, people who aid and abet the illegal activity. In no situation does the law enable prosecution of an entire category of people who have no connection to the illegal activities.
Prosecute all smugglers. There were many non-Jews involved in the smuggling trade. The North itself enabled the sale of cotton which it hoped would be used to finance its own war efforts while it penalized the South. Yet Grant’s orders do not punish all smugglers, but only Jewish one’s together with co-religionists, reeked of anti-Semitism and illogic.
Non-violence, nor calls for violence. None of the smugglers committed any violent acts against other Americans. While Grant argued that the smuggling itself helped fund the Confederacy, neither Jews as individuals, nor any Jewish group overall called for harming the Union. All of the smugglers – Jews and non-Jews alike – were simply seeking a profit.
Jews were serving in the Union Army. There were roughly eight thousand Jews serving in the Union army, including nine generals. The broad edict by Grant would have forced his own soldiers to be expelled from the region.

President Lincoln thought the order was inappropriate and countered the order. Lincoln commanded his general chief of the army, Henry Halleck, to revoke the order on January 4, 1863. Halleck wrote a letter to Grant which stated:

“It may be proper to give you some explanation of the revocation of your order expelling Jews from your department. The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose, was the object of your order; but, as it in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the President deemed it necessary to revoke it.”

Grant, who was later to become president of the United States, deeply regretted his Order No. 11 later in life, according to Sarna. He created a cabinet that included more Jews than any previous administration. When he was asked in 1875 why he issued such a bigoted order, he simply replied that in wartime “nice distinctions were disregarded. We had no time to handle things with kid gloves.”

Which has a similar ring to some calls against Muslims in America today.

Muslims in America Today

On December 8, 2015, the Wall Street Journal led with an editorial “The Obama-Trump Dialectic” which blamed the rise of Donald J. Trump’s illiberal suggestions of how to treat Muslims on the failures of Obama to confront militant radical jihadists.

The Obama failures regarding calling out and responding to radical Islam are plentiful, but beyond the scope of this article. The question is Trump’s desire to treat “an entire religious class” (to use the Lincoln-Grant phraseology) as a single unit.

Trump had two principle ideas of handling Muslims as of December 2015:

“a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”
a database for tracking all Muslims in the United States

Each of Trump’s ideas treats all Muslims as a distinct minority subject to rules that do not apply to any other people. The distinction is based on religion, as was the case for Jews in 1862, which was objectionable to President Lincoln.

1. Immigrants: The first idea relates to incoming immigrants, not US Muslim citizens. As such, while objectionable in principle, it is different than applying discriminatory laws against US citizens who have broad protections under the law. Trump’s arguments for foreign Muslims today are different than for Jews in 1862, as they also are in comparing Jewish immigrants fleeing Europe in the 1930s and 1940s:

There were no global Jewish militants threatening to destroy America, like radical jihadist groups ISIS, Al Qaeda, and others today
Foreign Jewish groups did not kill thousands of Americans as was the case of Muslim foreigners over the recent past
There was no Jewish state for Jews 150 years ago or during World War II to act as a natural safe haven for Jews fleeing persecution, while there are 57 Muslim countries to absorb fellow Muslim immigrants
Jews were not engaged in any violent activities in America in the 1860s or during World War II, while Muslims today are engaged in several international wars and have attacked America
Jews have always been a very small minority, while there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world leading to a potentially much more significant immigration issue
Jews have a long history of being expelled from countries, and hoped for a tolerant country in the United States which was founded on the principle of religious freedom; Muslims do not have a history of being expelled, but they also hope to enjoy America’s freedoms

Regarding Muslim immigration, Obama’s failures to call out Islamic terrorism is magnified by his refusal to take a strong stand on border control, according to Republicans and the WSJ. Trump said that the ban would only be temporary until the government better understands the situation.

As detailed in “A Logical Approach to Immigration from Personal History,” there is a successful history of the US processing immigrants fleeing persecution to make sure that proper vetting takes place. It would NOT ban all Muslims, but instead require them to first be situated out of harm’s way in a displaced person’s camp, say in Jordan, at which point vetting would occur. Women and children would be permitted into the US first, followed by men at some point in the future.

Most significantly, not every situation is the same. Muslims in Myanmar are different than Sunnis and Shiites from the Middle East. Each may or may not have valid reasons to seek asylum in the USA.

Trump’s call for an edict against “Muslims as a class” regarding immigration recalls Grant’s comment during wartime that “nice distinctions were disregarded. We had no time to handle things with kid gloves.” But today, there is time to manage a logical vetting process – which is more robust than put forward by President Obama.

2. Muslim Citizens. While non-American Muslims are not afforded protection of US laws (but only those that relate to immigration policies), American Muslims are full citizens with full rights and protections. They account for 0.9% of the US population. While some may have committed terrorist acts, the vast majority have not. Further, there is no indication that there is a widespread plot to harm America or American interests.

Like the Jews in 1862, there is no basis of treating all co-religionists as a single “class,” while the treatment of the Jews was punitive, and the Trump suggestion for Muslims would just be placing the group under surveillance.

The US government just ended its vast metadata collection program. That database was on all Americans that helped to track connections between potential terrorists. Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie stated that ending that program was a big mistake, as using data collection and analytical tools helped locate would-be terrorists and keeps Americans safe.

NJ Governor Chris Christie addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition
in Washington, D.C., December 2015
(photo: First.One.Through)

A new modified approach of data collection in which people who make calls to, or visit war zones, such as Iraq and Syria, would be tracked may be an appropriate next step. That would be more logical and fair and not treat all Muslims “as a class” simply for their religious beliefs, but based on actions. An action-based monitoring system and database would capture information on Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Conclusion

On December 10, 2015, the liberal newspaper The New York Times led with an editorial “The Trump Effect, and How it Spreads” which blamed the entire Republican party as being a bunch of racists. As opposed to the Wall Street Journal editorial two days prior, it did not place any blame for the popularity of Trump’s positions on the many failures of the Obama administration.

While liberals and conservatives would both agree that a government’s primary concern is for the safety of its citizens, it does so within the framework of laws. America has laws requiring the separation of church-and-state and also does not have a class-based entrenched society. The foundation documents of the country are that “all men are created equal“, and they should be treated equally under the law.

General Grant made an anti-Semitic order during the Civil War, but society was fortunate to have Abraham Lincoln who realized the deep inherent flaw of punishing an entire group of people. In the middle of that episode, Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, which freed the slaves. Lincoln understood that if all men are to be equal, it must include every minority – blacks or Jews.

General Grant had Lincoln to keep his anti-Semitic edict in check, and Grant ultimately proved to be a good friend of the Jews. His Order No. 11 was issued in the fervent hope of winning the war and protecting the Union.

Donald Trump has no power today so his words can best be kept in check by public voices, and ultimately the public vote. Both Republicans and Democrats have spoken out against his suggestions as being un-American. Indeed they are.

However, just as Grant was acting out of the interest of protecting America (with a very bad idea), it did not mark him as a permanent anti-Semite. It is similarly possible that a President Trump would place many Muslims on his cabinet.

Trump’s calls to treat Muslims “as a class” is wrong and racist. However, it does not mean that he will ultimately harbor anti-Muslim animus, just as Grant reformed in a time of peace. The NY Times suggestion that all of the Republican candidates are racists is as narrow-minded and bigoted as Trump’s declaration. However, it is more unlikely that the Times changes its biased viewpoints, than Trump modifying his.

Related First.One.Through articles:

I’m Offended, You’re Dead

Dancing with the Asteroids

The Gap between Fairness and Safety: WMDs in Iraq and Iran

Not Seeing the Eiffel Tower for the Girders

The Banners of Jihad

Finding Mr. Right-Wing

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Posted on December 9, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: The “Western World” rallies within its own borders when terrorism strikes, but ignores Jihadist radicals operating in the “Old World.” As it does so, it risks forgetting that neither values nor barbarism has borders.

Terra Incognita

The “cradle of civilization” is generally described as the location from where human beings emerged. Archeological evidence pins earliest humanoids in the region around Ethiopia, while biblical scholars point to modern day Iraq. The crescent between those regions is viewed as the birthplace of humankind.

Mankind slowly spread from its cradle to populate Europe, Asia and the rest of Africa. This held true (with few exceptions) until the late 1400s. Mapmakers of the 1470s and 1480s portrayed the known world in just those few continents, kept in check by various “winds.” It was the Columbus journey of 1492 that began the next expansion of civilization into North and South Americas, and then Australia in the early 1600s.

It took many decades to map out and settle these new lands as the voyagers from Western Europe slowly charted these new territories. Maps that initially referred to uncharted areas as “Terra Incognita,” eventually established the “New World.”

Claudius Ptolemy’s view of the World
(Johannes Schnitzer, engraver, 1482)

Western Europe’s New World

The New Worlds of North America, South America and Australia still feel closely aligned with Western Europe hundreds of years after the explorers from Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Netherlands and Great Britain established themselves on those shores. US President Obama stated on November 24, 2015 “Americans have recalled their own visits to Paris — visiting the Eiffel Tower, or walking along the Seine. We know these places. They’re part of our memories, woven into the fabric of our lives and our culture.”

And so it is with much of the New World and Western Europe. While the Europeans established the Americas and Australia/ New Zealand centuries ago, those new lands still feel a unique warmth and connection to the European continent separated by oceans and thousands of miles.

Over the centuries, the New World took in new immigrants from around the “Old World.” Africans were shipped against their will as slaves for the former Western European colonies, while people from Eastern Europe and Asia came on their own more recently.

The New World still prefers the close connections to their old motherlands in Western Europe.

Terra Barbarus

Western Europe was hit with several terrorist attacks after the United States was attacked on September 11, 2001. Those attacks included: Madrid (2004); London (2005); Belgium (2014); an two attacks in France in 2015. The reactions to attacks in Europe were noticeably different than reactions to terrorism in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region over this time period.

Regarding the second attack on Paris in November 2015, as well as another Islamic extremist attack in Turkey just days before, US President Obama said: “it’s an attack not just of France, not just on Turkey, but it’s an attack on the civilized world…. This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.””

There were no such broad declarations about “an attack on all of humanity… and universal values” when it came to terrorism in MENA.

The leader of the New World looked back to the Old World and saw terrorism divided into two: attacks on the “civilized world” which held “universal values that we share,” and other attacks from beyond the civilized world, in what can best be characterized by various American politicians as “Terra Barbarus.”

Politicians were not alone in this world view.

The world uniquely lit up Facebook with the flag of France after terrorist attacks. The terrorist slaughters in Nigeria, Kenya and Israel by jihadists over the same weeks barely passed people’s minds or hurt their hearts. The New World looked back on the Old with disgust and disdain: those are uncivilized barbaric lands. Terrorism emerges from there. Terrorism is expected there.

So Obama, himself the son of a man from Kenya, drew borders around the civilized world. It’s physical limit seemed to take him to Turkey, a member of NATO that sits on the edge of wars in Syria and Iraq. The edge of “civilization” touched the cradle of civilization.

Borders or Values

There is a country that sits in that Terra Barbarus that shares western values, and calls out to be recognized as part of “civilization.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly stated that the various jihadist forces that continue to kill in the Middle East, whether Islamic State, Hamas or Al Qaeda, are all “branches of the same poisonous tree.” While his country sat in a dangerous neighborhood, the values of Israeli society were the same as western values. He sought to remind western leaders of that point right after the Paris attacks in November 2015:

“Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic targeting of civilians. It can never be justified. Terrorism must always be condemned. It must always be fought. Innocent people in Paris, like those in London, Madrid, Mumbai, Buenos Aires and Jerusalem, are the victims of militant Islamic terrorism, not its cause. As I’ve said for many years, militant Islamic terrorism attacks our societies because it wants to destroy our civilization and our values.

“All terrorism must be condemned and fought equally with unwavering determination. It’s only with this moral clarity that the forces of civilization will defeat the savagery of terrorism.“

Indeed, Israel is the most liberal country in the entire Middle East and Africa. It’s values are closely aligned with Western Values. Yet despite Obama’s address on values, the West could not look beyond its contours of civilization. Unwilling to reframe its own narrative, the western world has opted to ignore the Israeli liberal society, and cast it as part of that dark side of humanity.

The Future

Should the West continue to ignore the liberal society in the Middle East, it can never expect to realize a different future for the entire region. The warring parties in Terra Barbarus will continue to battle each other, and occasionally reach out and damage the New World like a solar flare. So far, the New World reacts by alternatively bombing and ignoring the barbarians.

To realize a future world with universal values, the world must recognize the blue-and-white flower that has re-emerged in the arid soil in the cradle of civilization. Just as the West promises to fight barbarism that appears on its shores, it must nurture the “humanity” that exists everywhere.

Condemning terrorism was just part of Obama’s speech. Elevating those people that share western values must be part of the battle.

Flower in the hills around Jerusalem
(photo: First.One.Through)