Ilhan Omar Isn’t Debating Israeli Policy, She is Attacking Americans

Posted on March 7, 2019 by First.One.Through

Extremist left wing Democratic politicians are coming to the defense of Representative Ilhan Omar over charges that she made a series of anti-Semitic comments, by stating – inaccurately – that Omar is just debating some of Israel’s policies.

Democratic-Socialist Vermont Senator and Presidential-hopeful Bernie Sanders said “Anti-Semitism is a hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed in the United States and around the world. We must not, however, equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in Israel. Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and Palestinians together for a lasting peace.”
Alt-left Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren said “We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world — and that includes both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focus on policy. Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse.“

Rep. Ilhan Omar and Sen. Bernie Sanders conduct a news conference in
Washington, D.C. on Jan. 10, 2019. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP)

However, the Sanders and Warren comments meant to address Ilhan Omar have nothing to do with what Omar actually said. She didn’t debate policies, she attacked Americans.

Omar Attacking Particular Americans

Omar had two particular offensive comments regarding Israel supporters in America.

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” was a statement she made about AIPAC, the American Israel Political Affairs Committee. She suggested – incorrectly – two things:
1. that AIPAC gives money to politicians; they do not
2. politicians really don’t like Israel, but they support it because they need the pro-Zionist money to stay in office
“I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee,” was Omar’s complaint that politicians were being forced to serve a foreign regime. She suggested that such pledge was being forced on her by Americans generally (who must also have dual loyalties to advocate for such a thing), and from politicians who were demanding such pledge because of Zionist money (see 1 above).

These comments aren’t about Israeli policies such as the soft blockade of Gaza or the Security Barrier. These are comments about Americans, and the implication is Jewish Americans as she singled out the one Jewish State. Specifically, Omar was offended about their money, their undue influence in supporting a foreign power, and their powers of blackmail. These are disgraceful anti-Semitic tropes used by Hitler and the Nazi Party (the German Socialist movement of the 1930’s and 1940’s) that are being used by the alt-left today.

Jews have the money. AOC said their riches are “immoral.” NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio said that the “wrong” people have the money.
Jews use their wealth to support foreign entities, as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, to support and establish a “state within other states.”
Jews use the claim of anti-Semitism to shut down debate. This is also straight from Hitler’s Mein Kampf: “It was one of the most ingenious tricks that was ever invented to let this State sail under the flag of religion.” Hitler argued that part of the Jewish conspiracy was to claim that their religion protected it from discrimination while it continued “to expound the the nationalistic philosophy of the Jewish race.” (page 196)
Blackmail if demands not met. Omar made her objection clear. So did Adolf Hitler: “in politics, also, the application of economic means of pressure permits the exercise of extortion, as long as there exists a sufficient amount of the necessary recklessness on the one side, and enough stupid, sheepish patience on the other.” (page 63)

The alt-left Democratic Socialist wing has made no bones about income inequality and the rich taking advantage of the poor masses, just as Hitler wrote “they [the Jews] are cheats, characters of political profiteering, who hate the honest work of others. Just as such a folkish moth always appeals to the darkness of the silence, one can bet a thousand to one that under its cover he does not produce, but only steals steals from the fruits of the labor of others.” (page 504)

In the twisted modern world of intersectionality, Ilhan Omar and the alt-left are claiming that the immoral pro-Zionist money is enabling a takeover of America’s foreign policy to protect the racist, colonial Zionist entity. At it’s core, that is not a discussion about a particular Israeli policy, nor about lobbying groups generally. That is a bright red line of anti-Semitism crawling back from humanity’s darkest history into modern US politics.

We are watching the unfolding of a very insidious strain of socialism play out in the Democratic party that brought the world to ruin less than 100 years ago. What are we going to do about it?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

Is Ilhan Omar’s Mentor the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Christiane Amanpour is More Anti-Semitic Than Ilhan Omar

Is Calling Someone a ‘Nazi’ Simply a ‘Poor Choice of Words?’ Ask a Westchester Democrat

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

When Hate Returns

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

The Many Lies of Jimmy Carter

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Is Ilhan Omar’s Mentor the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

Posted on March 6, 2019 by First.One.Through

Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has gotten herself into repeated hot water for attacks on Israel and its supporters, as many people have viewed her comments as anti-Semitic. She is emblematic of a new group of alt-left politicians who squarely focus on Israel and any of its perceived misdeeds.

It is a curious phenomenon, not only because Israel is the most liberal country in the Middle East / North Africa (MENA) region by far, but that people like Omar pay no attention to their native countries as they attack Israel.

Consider an important point for progressives – the death penalty. Only Israel and Oman had zero executions and zero people sentenced to death in 2017 among the MENA countries. In Omar’s native Somalia, 24 people were executed by the government, almost double the total of 14 in 2016.

Israel is one of only five countries in MENA in which being gay is legal. In several countries, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, being gay is a capital offense, with most gays hung from cranes in the center of the city. In Ilhan’s native Somalia, being gay is punishable with jail time.

The dynamic is much the same regarding women’s rights. Israel is one of only five MENA countries that score in the top half of the world’s rankings for inclusion, justice and safety for women. Ilhan’s native Somalia is ranked as one of the worst countries in the world for women. It is estimated that 95% of females in Somalia have forced genital mutilation. It is ranked as the worst country for maternal health.

The problems for Somalia continue. It is ranked as number 180 out of 180 by Transparency International Corruption Index, the worst country in the world. Israel ranked as number 34 out of 180, in the top quintile.

Somalia is considered the worst countries to be a journalist according to the Global Impunity Index of 2017 – worse than even Syria and Iraq.

Regardless of the issue – gay rights, women’s rights, environmental matters, animal rights, freedom of speech, press and religion – Israel performs better than its neighbors. It is in a completely different league than Somalia which is one of the worst counties in the world by every measure.

So why would an immigrant from Somalia to the United States focus so much of her attention on a small country thousands of miles from the United States? Why would a new member of Congress not be concerned with her failed native land? Is it in her constituents’ interests for her to be admonished by fellow Democrats for an obsessive focus on Israel?

As detailed in “Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference,” many Arab and Muslim countries – and their supporters – believe that Israel is an inherently racist enterprise, built on the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Palestinian Arabs and the theft of Muslim holy lands. They believe that the supporters of such evil regime – the United States being the most powerful – are either evil and racist themselves (like Donald Trump), or are being manipulated by Zionist forces. All of Ilhan Omar’s comments to date seemingly support this viewpoint: the Jewish State is racist and that pro-Zionists are racists and/or are manipulated by racist puppet-masters. Sounds pretty anti-Semitic, no?

Should Omar want to wash the stain of obsessive anti-Zionism which is very much tied to anti-Semitism, there is a simple action she could take: clearly declare that Israel has a right to exist in peace and security. Without such statement, no one will consider anything else she has to say. Other helpful actions would include:

Acknowledging the Jewish people’s long history in the holy land going back thousands of years, including being the majority of Jerusalem since the 1860’s
Acknowledging that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination
Acknowledging that Israel is a liberal democracy
Acknowledging Israel’s remarkable contributions to the world in the areas of technology and medicine
Acknowledging that all people in the United States have a right to advocate for the causes they hold dear, including the pro-Israel community
Considering Israel within the scope of its neighbors, and not pretending it resides in a peaceful neighborhood like Sweden
Considering the Israel-Palestinian Conflict within the scope of other territorial disputes, including: Cyprus-Turkey; Morocco-Western Sahara; China-Tibet; and India-Pakistan over Kashmir

No one will ever claim that anyone or any country is perfect; that’s the beauty and shame of being human. In being flawed, there is always room for improvement. Constructive criticism from a friend is an important part of growing. People who love America want America to be better, and people who love Israel want Israel to be better.

However, what is most unwelcome is for someone with no connection and no relationship to the country and who hasn’t shared a positive word, to chastise it on a global stage and urge for punitive actions. How much hatred must such a person harbor to go out of their way and ignore much worse and more immediate issues, to assault a people who have been subject to more hatred and attacks than any people on earth?

Omar tweeted in August 2017 “Syria’s Assad has become an icon of the far right in America,” suggesting that some Americans were interested in murdering hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens. She cannot be surprised if some of her fellow Americans who proudly support the Jewish State compare her and her alt-left comrades to the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who seeks a new Muslim Caliphate and the destruction of Israel. This is the echo of Omar’s own words.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Real “Symbol of the Conflict” is Neta Sorek

Existing While Jewish

BDS is a Movement by Radical Islamists and Far-Left Progressives to Block Your Freedoms

Farrakhan’s Democrats

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

Racist Calls of Apes and Pigs? Forget Rosanne. Let’s Talk Islam

When Hate Returns

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

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Rep. Ilhan Omar and The 2001 Durban Racism Conference

Posted on March 5, 2019 by First.One.Through

The new far-left member of the House of Representatives Ilhan Omar was unfairly tied to the terrorist attacks against America on September 11, 2001 by Republicans in West Virginia. She was just turning 20 years old at the time of the attacks and had nothing to do with those mass murders, nor has she said anything since that time to suggest that she supported the killings of thousands of Americans.

However, many of Omar’s comments over the past few weeks do strongly correlate to the Durban Conference Against Racism which took place one week before the 9/11 attacks, specifically her invective against the Jewish State and those who support it.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewing Rep. Ilhan Omar

United Nations World Conference against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance

The World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) met from August 31 to September 7, 2001 with a noble goal: to eradicate racism and intolerance and to promote human rights. However, the conference agenda was hijacked into an anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist seminar promoted by several Arab and Muslim countries as early as February 2001 at the Asian preparatory meeting in Iran. The Arab countries and Muslim countries contended that the “occupation of Palestine” was racially motivated, and that “Zionism is racism,” so insisted on keeping the issue at WCAR.

Several countries, including the United States, Canada and members of the EU attempted to remove any language which dealt with regional issues like Israel-Palestine at a conference meant to deal with racism generally. The US considered not attending WCAR due to the presence of the Zionism-racism language, but ultimately opted to send a mid-level representative rather than US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

At the conference itself, the singling out of Israel continued. The situation became so intolerable for many, that the American and Israeli attendees withdrew, as did the Jewish Caucus at the NGO seminar nearby.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell made the following comment upon withdrawing from the conference:

“Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of “Zionism equals racism;” or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world–Israel–for censure and abuse.“

At the NGO conference, Jewish attendees were asked to leave the session about Palestinian rights because Jews were “biased and couldn’t be counted on to act in the interest of general human rights.” The NGO group also stripped language which Jews had requested which stated:

“We are concerned with the prevalence of Anti-Zionism and attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel through wildly inaccurate charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, as a virulent contemporary form of anti-Semitism leading to firebombing of synagogues, armed assaults against Jews, incitements to killing, and the murder of innocent Jews, for their support for the existence of the State of Israel, the assertion of the right to self determination of the Jewish people and the attempts, through the State of Israel, to preserve their cultural and religious identity.”

The United Nations adopted a resolution to endorse the Durban Declaration and Program of Action in March 2002 by a vote of 134 to 2 against (the United States and Israel) with two abstentions (Australia and Canada). The NGO Forum also adopted a declaration, which included language calling for the end of “Israeli systematic perpetration of racist crimes, including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing” and called Israel a “racist, apartheid state.” Many NGOs disassociated themselves from the declaration, and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson described the NGO Forum as “hateful, even racist,” and refused to receive or endorse the NGO Declaration.

Sadly, the conference designed to promote tolerance excluded the Jewish State from the umbrella of human rights and dignity.

Several years later, in the waning days of the George W Bush administration, it continued to voice its concern about the April 2009 WCAR Follow-up, and the danger of working with parties who give an outward nod towards peace while seeking to inflame anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

Ilhan Omar and the Alt-Left Congressional Freshmen

The 2018 US elections fielded the most diverse class of people ever in the country’s history. There were more women, more immigrants and more people of diverse backgrounds. It appeared to be a moment of break-through for America as a broad welcoming society of the people for the people.

But, like the Durban Conference, the picture of harmony in diversity masked darker forces. Many of those people running were alt-left extremists who described themselves as “Democratic-Socialists.” The group included:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York
Sarah Smith in Washington
Rashida Tlaib in Michigan
James Thompson in Kansas
Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato who both unseated longtime Democratic incumbents, and Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale.

Ilhan Omar, an immigrant from Somalia, joined Rashida Tlaib to become the first two Muslim women in Congress. And their pro-Palestinian and anti-Capitalist views rapidly conflated into anti-Semitic comments and tweets.

On November 16, 2012, Omar tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza #Palestine #Israel“
In the summer of 2018, when asked to address whether her 2012 comments were antisemitic, Omar responded “These accusations are without merit. They are rooted in bigotry toward a belief about what Muslims are stereotyped to believe.”
She later tweeted that Israel is an apartheid state. “Drawing attention to the apartheid Israeli regime is far from hating Jews.“

By the time Omar was elected to Congress, she was fully morphing anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

In February 2019, Omar claimed that people only supported Israel because of Zionist money “It’s all about the Benjamins baby!“
She followed up that comment that people who supported Israel have misplaced loyalties to foreign entities “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.“

For Omar – and many countries that supported the Durban Declaration – Israel is an evil, racist apartheid state and people who support such an entity are backing evil and the theft of Palestinian land and heritage. They believe that Israel supporters convince politicians to bless the sinister state through bribes, using “immoral” capitalistic riches to absolve and shield the colonialism of the Jewish State.

In truth, Omar and the Durban Declaration have created a modern day blood libel in which Jews take Palestinian Arab lives instead of Christian babies, to create the modern State of Israel, rather than matzah for Passover. For the alt-left Israel-demonizers, the supporters of such a blatantly racist Israeli regime are either racists (like US President Donald Trump) or are being played by the Jewish puppet masters (the non-Jewish Democratic leadership).

The fact that Jews are indigenous to the holy land going back thousands of years is ignored; that Israel is the sole thriving liberal democracy for thousands of miles, sharing western values is falsified; that the Jewish State is a small country with serious security threats in a hostile region which seeks its destruction, and is worthy of US military assistance is rejected. While liberals are often pro-Palestinian, these alt-left “progressives” are actively anti-Israel, rejecting Jewish history and rights.

The Democratic leadership must now take a stand and make a choice: it can clearly condemn the statements and sentiments of Omar and strip her of committee membership, or it can coddle the alt-left wing of the party, to avoid offending the first black woman Muslim in Congress and her backers.

President Bush made a clear decision in walking from the Durban Conference: American values will not let it act as a cloak to vile antisemitism on the world stage. Will House Speaker Nancy Pelosi make a similar move and remove Ilhan Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and declare that Democratic values extend beyond the #MeToo movement stripping men of offices who were accused of sexual assault, to #JeSuisJuif and evict Jew-haters from positions of power? If the Democratic leadership and presidential hopefuls were looking for an actual “I am Spartacus” moment, the time is now.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

Eyal Gilad Naftali Klinghoffer. The new Blood Libel.

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion – The Musical”

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

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

The Parameters of Palestinian Dignity

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Progressives are Stripping the Equity of Our Lives

Posted on February 1, 2019 by First.One.Through

The annual showing at the Davos, Switzerland World Economic Forum is always a spectacle. It is usually due to the who’s-who list of billionaires, celebrities and world leaders in a beautiful location. In 2019, it also featured stupid ideas led by the “progressive” views of worker protection and entitlement.

A Progressive View of Automation

One of the important themes discussed at the WEF was the consideration of the “Future of Work.” The Forum put forward three alternative views of how a world of digitization and automation could develop in the future. The considerations revolved around efficiencies, how to improve the value to customers, and how technology will require a new set of skills as it transforms the job market. The discussion sought to consider the future dynamics of competing aims of shareholders, workers and customers.

While progressives tout the concept of “fairness,” their actual concern is about a particular type of “equality,” which is the equal distribution of money. The status of “wealth inequality” and “income inequality” drives the proposed progressive agenda and thereby hijacks the definition of “fairness” to be one that reaches the conclusion of wealth and income equality.

In such an orientation, the holders of mass wealth – typically owning large stakes in companies – are afforded no leniency. If the future of automation brings an accelerated and inflamed debate of competing interests between shareholders, employees and consumers, the discussion is concluded as soon as it was introduced.

The progressive rag, The New York Times had an article written about the WEF called “The Hidden Automation Agenda of the Davos Elite.” As the title suggests, the article reviewed how the “elite” – those evil one-percenters – were hatching nefarious plans to destroy the workers of the world. The corporate titans at Davos were marketing how automation was going to bring all sorts of new inventions to the world with lower prices for consumers, however, the real goal was to replace people with robots, and hoard all of the economic gains for themselves.

“Automating work is a choice, of course, one made harder by the demands of shareholders, but it is still a choice. And even if some degree of unemployment caused by automation is inevitable, these executives can choose how the gains from automation and A.I. are distributed, and whether to give the excess profits they reap as a result to workers, or hoard it for themselves and their shareholders.

“The choices made by the Davos elite — and the pressure applied on them to act in workers’ interests rather than their own — will determine whether A.I. is used as a tool for increasing productivity or for inflicting pain.”

The progressive argument is plain: the elite / executives / shareholders will hoard the gains from digitization and automation, unless pressure (or new progressive tax and corporate laws) force the benefits to be distributed to workers.

A Progressive View of Employee/ Shareholder Protections

The progressive view of wealth is that it is essentially “immoral” as the recent progressive political star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview. It is a view shared by many progressives who view capitalism as evil at its core.

The notion that someone could build and own a business and become ridiculously wealthy – say Howard Schultz who created Starbucks – is inherently wrong according to the far left-wing. The hard work and risks which Schultz took along the way to create a company that employed tens of thousands of people and produced a product that millions of people enjoy is somehow negated by the tremendous wealth he personally amassed. According to progressives, his earnings and wealth should have been stripped along the way and passed on to the people who made and served the coffee. The salary of the workers was clearly inappropriate compensation if the company became so profitable. For progressives, the redundant task of making venti lattes all day which requires limited skills, no education and no risk – a task that will soon be automated – is not the essence of the discussion. The objection is that the person who owned the company made thousands of times more than the average worker, a conclusion, they believe that is immoral.

This progressive logic takes a bizarre turn when employees don’t help create value but destroy it.

Consider the electric utility PG&E which is being sued for causing the forest fires that killed people and destroyed billions of dollars in property value. Employees at the company are accused of committing a series of terrible errors, including not cutting the power in dry areas suffering from high winds (when the power lines came down from the wind, the electric sparks ignited the dry brush).

Who “paid” for the worker errors? Were thousands of employees fired? Was the employee pension fund stripped? Were line workers lined up before commissions and denounced in the media? No.

The executives and shareholders took the heat. Shareholders – many “women and orphans” who own utility stocks for the “safe” dividends – paid the price. On November 8, 2018, PGE stock closed at $47.80. One week later, on November 15 it stood at $17.74.

Did progressives cry fowl that the economic “windfall” wasn’t being shared equitably? Did they suggest that the workers who caused all of the death and destruction should bear the costs? No. They passed legislation meant to protect customers from rate hikes. Democrat State Senator Bill Dodd said his bill was needed because “without it, ratepayers will be left holding the bag and communities will needlessly suffer.”

The Democratic Senator from California, Kamala Harris, who just announced her intention to run for president hasn’t said a word about the large corporate bankruptcy in her state. Any ideas why she would remain mum on such an enormous story? (Please don’t suggest it’s her ties to Democrats aligned with PG&E).

As the Democratic party lurches leftward, it is swaying deeper and deeper into an economic policy based on wealth redistribution over capitalism. The progressives have determined – and are demanding – that a worker whose job can be automated should not only not be fired, but be entitled to profit-sharing.

Progressives are seeking to dramatically revamp the notion of private ownership. They are advancing an economic system where we will collect fixed payouts as determined by federal officials. Workers, one and all. Equal and protected.

Private ownership will only be at the nod of the government. Strict limits will be imposed on compensation, capping salaries and demanding a set number of worker representatives sit on the board of directors. “Private” enterprise will be managed aggressively by politicians through heavy regulation and taxes, not by market forces.

The progressive aim is to strip people of the equity of their efforts and replace the return on their passions with interest payments as bondholders of the state. An “equitable” economy liberated and succored by a large government.

Such a system stymies equity investment and risk taking. It shrinks the economy and hurts innovation. No matter.

US President Ronald Reagan once said “this country is too great for small dreams.” For progressives, the great dream is a small country.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

A Country Divided

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

I Love 5-to-4

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Christiane Amanpour is More Anti-Semitic Than Ilhan Omar

Posted on January 18, 2019 by First.One.Through

On January 17, 2019, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed the new Democratic member of the House of Representatives, Ilhan Omar. Amanpour asked Omar to comment on a tweet she made in 2012 when she accused the government of Israel of being evil and “hypnotizing the world” regarding the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza, a statement which many people viewed as anti-Semitic.

CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviews Ilhan Omar January 17, 2019

The lead-in by Amanpour was arguably more anti-Semitic than Omar’s tweet (which Omar claimed was simply about her anger about military actions of the Israeli government):

“Can I move on to something that is generally sort of a right of passage for politicians in the United States and that is sort of to profess sort of fealty, or at least pay homage, to AIPAC, the pro-Israel PAC that is very, very prominent.”

To be clear, the expression “professing fealty” is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as “the fidelity of a vassal or feudal tenant to his lord.”

Amanpour’s introductory statement was that all US politicians are vassals of (slaves to) the pro-Israel lobby. She made this anti-Israel canard as a casual observance of fact, not a concocted claim of outrageous fiction. She gave the CNN audience the impression that the US-Israel relationship is not based on MUTUAL values and benefits, but one of sinister puppet-masters controlling the US government.

Omar made a disgraceful statement about the Jewish State several years ago, but at least it was born from an anger related to military activity. However, Amanpour used a vile anti-Semitic charge against all Zionists at all times.

It was right and proper for CNN to terminate Marc Lamont Hill for his calls to destroy Israel. It is even more appropriate for the media group to fire Christiane Amanpour for going beyond terrible accusations of dual-loyalty against Americans who support Israel, to actually charging them with abusing the entirety of American politics with selfish Zionist schemes.

Related First.One.Through articles:

CNN Makes Clear the Attackers and Victims in Gaza-Israel Fight

CNN Will Not Report Islamic Terrorism

Don Lemon, Here are Some Uncomfortable Facts about Hate Crimes in America

Social Media’s “Fake News” and Mainstream Media’s Half-Truths

CNN’s Embrace of Hamas

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan

Related First.One.Through video:

Jews and US Foreign Policy (music by Vangelis)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

New York Times Reprints Union Manifesto

Posted on January 18, 2019 by First.One.Through

The Los Angeles Teacher’s Union went on strike, abandoning roughly 600,000 students. The 30,000 public school teachers want many things, the primary one of which is more money. You’d be hard pressed to learn about how much money they make today, their pension and healthcare benefits and vacation perks from the New York Times.

The NY Times front page January 18, 2019 article focused on the plight of the students. The article conveyed how poor students have no place to go while rich students did while school was out. It described a California tax system that favored rich neighborhoods over poor ones. It described how California public schools often had over 40 students per grade while most urban public schools had between 16 and 28 (curious math when 600,000 students serviced by 30,000 teachers implies an average of 20 students per teacher). The article reviewed how charter schools hurt the public schools.

In other words, the paper published a sad story about the students without shedding light on what teachers in California earn. One would imagine that an actual NEWSpaper which is (theoretically) meant to educate readers would supply some basic information about the REASON FOR THE STRIKE. Instead, the liberal rag opted to make it sound like the teachers are striking for the benefit of the students.

Here is some data from the California Department of Education:

For elementary schools, the mid-range average salary for a teacher in a middle-sized school is $75,417. For a large school, the average teacher makes $80,256
For high schools, the mid-range average salary for a teacher in a middle-sized school is $80,177. For a large school, the average teacher makes $86,127
Overall, the average salary of public school teachers in 2016–17 in the State of California was $79,128
California public school teachers don’t pay social security tax – they aren’t a part of the country-wide system of support for seniors. Instead, they have their own pension system. The pension allows people to begin withdrawing money without penalty at age 60 or 62 – five years before the rest of the country gets any social security benefits. Further, the system doesn’t pay out anemic monies to seniors – the annual payout often exceeds the annual salary the teachers earned for the rest of their lives. (In case you’re wondering how such a system can work with such generous payments and little teacher pay-in – it can’t. It’s supported by taxes).
Health benefits for California teachers are among the best in the country.
While most Americans work at least 245 days per year, school teachers in California work only 180 days, 26% less.
Did we mention job security? While most Americans are worried about losing their jobs or their employer failing, teachers in California have almost a guaranteed job for life.

The average teacher in California makes 52% more than the average person (average CA salary is $51,910), has a more generous pension and works significantly fewer hours than the rest of the people in the state.

But the NY Times opted to not educate its readers. Instead, it opted to be the public mouthpiece of union labor, pretending the strike is about the welfare of children rather than the pockets of union members. Another edition of #AlternativeFacts

Related First.One.Through articles:

NY Times, NY Times, What Do You See? It Sees Rich White Males

If a Black Muslim Cop Kills a White Woman, Does it Make a Sound?

The New York Times will Keep on Telling You: Jews are not Native to Israel

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

In Inversion, New York Times Admits “The Truth is Hard to Find”

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

The NY Times outdoes itself Swapping News and Editorials

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Looking at Gaza Through Swedish Glasses

Posted on November 15, 2018 by First.One.Through

It is amazing to review how “enlightened” governments in Europe consider the situation in Gaza and Israel.

Firstly, how few governments understand and internalize simple facts:

Gaza was part-and-parcel of Palestine. That means that it was designated to be part of the Jewish homeland as outlined in international law in 1920 and the 1922 Palestine Mandate.
Gaza was seized and occupied by Egypt in 1948-9. Egypt made no attempt to establish Gaza as an independent Arab state while it administered the area. No international movement pressured Egypt to create such entity.
Gazans are not refugees. The Arabs from other parts of Palestine which became Israel in 1948 who moved to Gaza cannot be called “refugees,” but “internally-displaced people” who relocated to another part of the territory.
Gazans are independent. This is first time in history that the local Arabs in Gaza rule over themselves, since Israel uprooted every Israeli Jew – soldier and civilian – in 2005.
Gazans are ruled by their favorite terrorist group, Hamas. Hamas is designated as a terrorist group by much of the world including the United States, European Union and Israel. It calls for the destruction of Israel in its 1988 charter and was democratically elected to a majority of the Palestinian Parliament in 2006. It continues to lead in Palestinian polls should another election ever be held.
Egypt and Israel imposed the Gaza blockade because of Hamas. Israel and Egypt did not have any blockade of Gaza in 2005 when it gave the region independence. The countries established the blockade after Hamas routed the Palestinian Authority from the region in a mini- civil war between Hamas and Fatah in 2007.
Hamas launched three wars from Gaza in the past decade. In 2008, 2012 and 2014 the Palestinians in Gaza ratcheted up their attacks on Israel into full-blow wars.
The Palestinian attacks from Gaza have not stopped. In between each of the three wars, the Arabs in Gaza continued to attack Israel through incendiary devices, mortar shelling, sniper shots, tunnel infiltration and bombings.

These are plain historic facts which should not be subject to interpretation. Israel abandoned territory to which it had international and historic rights, to watch it be taken over by a group sworn to its destruction which battles against it constantly. You would imagine that such data points would inform how diplomats view the situation there.

But today, the European Union is a haven for Israel-bashers.

Consider Swedish Ambassador Olof Skoog’s address to the United Nations Security Council in May 2018 on the fighting between the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza and Israel. His comments showed an interesting perspective.

H.E Mr. Olof Skoog, Permanent Representative of Sweden to the United Nations and the President of the Security Council for the month of July 2018

Palestinians are protesting peacefully, so by definition, Israel is using disproportionate force:

“Israel, as the occupying power, has a responsibility to protect Palestinian civilians and must fully respect the right to peaceful protest, protect civilians and ensure that the use of force, and other measures taken, are strictly proportional.”
“We urge the Israeli security forces to refrain from the use of force against unarmed civilian protestors and representatives of the media. We also call on Hamas, and those organising the demonstrations, to avoid any provocations and ensure that protests remain non-violent and peaceful.”

In such worldview, Israel is the party responsible for the people of Gaza and for the violence. Hamas is not responsible for Gaza; it organizes peaceful demonstrations.

Both sides use children as pawns:

“We urge all parties to act with the utmost restraint to avoid further loss of life and to protect civilians, particularly children. This means never making children the target of violence as well as not putting children in harm’s way or encouraging them to participate in violence.”

It is true that children are inherently innocent; the violence in which they engage is at the direction of adults. But how does one address a violent mob of thousands of children?

Israel should lift Gaza blockade:

“we must not forget that the people of Gaza have lived in intolerable conditions for far too long, in a humanitarian situation that is now deteriorating even further. To tackle this situation and to enable Gaza to recover, movement and access restrictions must be eased.”

Even with the restrictions of goods, the Arabs of Gaza have amassed hundreds if not thousands of missiles and built additional underground tunnels into Israel, yet the Swedes want to ease the blockade?

Israel does not provide free access in Jerusalem to all religions:

“The position of Sweden and the whole European Union on the status of Jerusalem as a final status issue is clear and will not change. All three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Islam and Christianity – have strong bonds to Jerusalem that must be preserved. A way must be found through negotiations to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of both states, in line with relevant UN resolutions.”

Israel is the ONLY country that respects the three monotheistic faiths and allows all religions to worship in their holy locations. For centuries, the Arab Muslims forbade Jews from even climbing the steps of the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron! If the goal is freedom of access and respect for religions, then Jerusalem MUST remain the capital of Israel; to suggest otherwise is the inverse of reality and logic.

Western Jerusalem is not part of Israel:

“In line with longstanding policy of the European Union, we will continue to respect the international consensus on the status of Jerusalem embodied in, among others, Security Council resolution 478, including on the location of diplomatic representations until the final status of Jerusalem is resolved.”
“As was stated in December last year, we regret the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. It runs counter to international law and this Council’s resolutions.”

The United States relocated its embassy to Israel in the western part of Jerusalem. Has Sweden declared that even the Knesset is on disputed land?

Refusal to comprehend that Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel:

“There is unanimity around this table, I believe, in calls for restraint, for de-escalation, to break the cycle of violence, relieving the dire situation in Gaza and for a resumed serious negotiation towards peace.”

How does a party negotiate peace with another party that seeks its destruction?

Pre-ordaining outcome of two-state solution including Jerusalem and no Jews:

“ We must, more than ever, urgently engage to bring the parties back to negotiations to advance the two-state solution. Intra-Palestinian reconciliation and the Palestinian Authority’s reestablishment in Gaza are also needed. A halt to settlements and an end to the ongoing Israeli occupation are fundamental.”

The Swedish diplomat claims to seek a two-state solution to be negotiated between the parties, but also demands the conclusion of such negotiation with “Jerusalem as the capital of both states” and a Palestine free of any Jews through halting Israeli “settlements.”

An address meant to quell violence in Gaza became a forum for the Swedish diplomat to dictate his desired outcome of a “negotiated” two-state solution. Skoog sanitized the Gaza protests as “peaceful,” and its intentions as noble.

With such a mindset, is it any wonder that Sweden became the first major EU country to recognize Palestine as a country. One can imagine it continuing to wage further diplomatic battles against Israel in the years ahead.

Related First.One.Through articles:

European Narrative over Facts

What’s Wrong with UNRWA

The Recognition Catch Up

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

Failing Negotiation 102: Europe

Denmark and Netherlands Support Ari Fuld’s Murder

The Happy and Smug Bigots of Denmark

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

Posted on November 5, 2018 by First.One.Through

There are a number of candidates on the ballot across the country with extremist views. On the far-left, are people who refer to themselves as “Democratic Socialists.” They include:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Julia Salazar in New York
Sarah Smith in Washington
Rashida Tlaib in Michigan
James Thompson in Kansas
Summer Lee and Sara Innamorato both unseated longtime Democratic incumbents, and Elizabeth Fiedler and Kristin Seale.

Two of the alarming extremist views held by the Democratic Socialists are their desires to destroy America’s free market economy and to destroy the Jewish State of Israel.

Attack on Capitalism

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), explain their view of the economy very clearly:

“We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.”

The goal of the DSA is to move the role of companies from one of profit to one which is for the betterment of society. Under the DSA, companies will become unionized, just in time for technology and globalization to sweep America back into the 1800’s.

The DSA does not want private shareholders to decide the direction of companies; it demands that companies’ workers and consumers make those decisions. Corporate workers get to do this by getting free shares in their employer, taken from current shareholders. A beautiful wealth transference akin to highway robbery.

Somehow, the DSA imagines that companies and shareholders have no regard for their workers, customers or society. It is as if companies today do not operate in a competitive landscape for customers and workers. The DSA’s naive view of corporate America makes a James Bond villain look tame.

This is no exaggeration. More from the DSA website:

“In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.“

In the near-term, the DSA wants to regulate private companies as much as possible; more and more government oversight, demands and regulations. A near-term goal may be to close the “pay gap” between the highest and lowest paid employee in a company to be capped (if an entry-level job pays $30,000, then the Socialists will cap the CEO pay at say 50x of that level, or $1.5 million). In the longer term, the Socialists will take over the companies completely.

“a long-term goal of socialism is to eliminate all but the most enjoyable kinds of labor, we recognize that unappealing jobs will long remain. These tasks would be spread among as many people as possible rather than distributed on the basis of class, race, ethnicity, or gender, as they are under capitalism.”

The DSA view of the future is the forced allocation of unpopular jobs to everyone. A check-out clerk at Walmart would no longer be someone without a high school diploma or finite skills, but will include college graduates who must “volunteer” their time behind the cash register. Makes perfect sense… only to a socialist.

The DSA is about government control of all elements of the economy via a government and worker takeover of the private companies:

“Multinational corporations must be brought under democratic controls, and workers’ organizing efforts must reach across borders.”

In their own words, the Democratic Socialists are seeking a government takeover of private enterprises and a reallocation of work to meet their own view of equality and justice.

Further, the socialists want to institute an immediate wealth transfer from those people who are viewed as either too wealthy or too seedy (or both). Here’s a quote from the website of Sarah Smith:

“make public universities tuition free, paid for with a tax on Wall Street speculators.”

If free tuition is a societal benefit, why not make everyone pay for it? See the socialist manifesto above.

Moving such radical viewpoints into positions of power would be destructive to the American economy and impact every American.

Against Israel, the Only Liberal Democracy in the Middle East

The Democratic Socialist politicians stand against Israel.

Rashida Tlaib from Michigan is a promoter of the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said that Israel occupies Palestinian land, “massacres” Palestinian protesters.
Sarah Smith believes that Israel should not be allowed to curtail Hamas’s import of weapons into Gaza.
Khader El-Yateem, who ran for City Council in New York was also vocal advocate of the BDS movement.

This should come as no surprise, as the movement stands together with Palestinian Arabs that attack Israelis and in favor of BDS:

“We unequivocally stand in solidarity with Ahed Tamimi [attacker of IDF personnel] and all those struggling for the liberation of the Palestinian people in Occupied Palestine. We also stand with the 63 Israeli youth who recently wrote a letter saying they won’t serve in the IDF. We recognize our government’s active collaboration with the occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people and we are against it, as evidenced by DSA’s 2017 national convention passing a resolution in support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement.”

The DSA’s 2017 resolution was as follow:

“1. Democratic Socialists of America declares itself in solidarity with Palestinian civil society’s nonviolent struggle against apartheid, colonialism, military occupation and for equality, human rights, and self-determination.
2. Democratic Socialists of America responds to Palestinian Civil Society’s call by fully supporting BDS.”

The platform did not speak about any other country – not Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or North Korea.

The entire DSA movement is infected with an anti-Israel animus. It even gets into college campuses.

On November 8, 2018, the Democratic Socialists of City College in New York City will be partnering with Students for Justice in Palestine, a noted hate group. Together, they are sponsoring a talk by vocal anti-Zionist Norman Finkelstein.

Poster of event promoted by Democratic Socialists and
Students for Justice in Palestine, SJP

SJP doesn’t just dislike Israeli policies. They don’t only want to see the destruction of the Jewish State. They want to see Jews and Israelis killed.

Selection of posts from social media from SJP members
calling for people to kill Jews and Zionists

Members of SJP should be arrested and charged with hate crimes and incitement. But the members of the DSA are actively associating with it.

The Democratic Socialists are the worst thing to happen to the Democratic Party. Should they be elected, it will begin the unwinding of the greatest countries in modern times.

Related First.One.Through Articles:

This July 4, I am Leaving the Democratic Party that Left Me Long Ago

Bernie Sanders is the Worst U.S. Presidential Candidate for Israel Ever

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

A Country Divided

In The Margins

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Don Lemon, Here are Some Uncomfortable Facts about Hate Crimes in America

Posted on November 1, 2018 by First.One.Through

In the immediate aftermath of the antisemitic massacre of Jews in Pittsburgh in October 2018, CNN went through an effort to explain to its audience the nature of hatred. In truth, it just revealed the nature of its own biases.

Don Lemon, a ubiquitous talking head for CNN made the following comment in an exchange with Chris Cuomo, another anchor:

“So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on — you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban”

Let’s put aside the racist comment on its face for a moment, something that could have emerged from the mouth of Louis Farrakhan. Let’s simply examine the data as compiled every year by the FBI regarding hate crimes in the USA.

Factual Review

The FBI tracks who commits crimes by race and ethnicity, and white people did commit more crimes than any other racial group in 2016. But there are also many more white people than other racial groups, so the absolute comparison needs context. As there are roughly 5.7 times more white people than black people, one would expect 5.7 times more black offenders as well.

Hate Crimes Against a Person, 2016

	Population	Offender	Frequency
White	248,484,663	2,197	113,102
Black	42,975,891	1,117	38,474
Hispanic	57,516,606	214	268,769

According to the FBI, 2,197 white people in America committed a hate crime and 1,117 black people committed a hate crime, almost twice the number of attacks. However, when accounting for the size of each group, the numbers conclude that an average black person was three times more likely to commit a hateful attack against a person than a white person (one hate crime attack for every 38,000 black people and one attack for every 113,000 white people).

Overall, violent crime in the United States has been in a decline for over a decade according to the FBI. The exceptions were spikes in violent crime in 2012, 2015 and 2016. This would seemingly undermine the accusation that Donald Trump is the reason for more violence in America, as violent crime actually declined in 2017.

Change in Number of Violent Crimes

Years	Change
2016/17	-0.8%
2015/16	5.3%
2014/15	1.7%
2013/14	-4.6%
2012/13	-5.4%
2011/12	1.9%
2010/11	-6.4%
2009/10	-6.2%
2008/09	-4.4%
2007/08	-3.5%

As it relates, to Jews, many of the alt-left progressive wing have charged that Jews are part of the white privileged class. The likes of Linda Sarsour and Melissa Harris-Perry defend Louis Farrakhan’s antisemitism because they don’t believe that Farrakhan has any power or influence so his comments are therefore innocuous against a privileged group of Jews.

But the facts tell a different story.

Hate Crimes Against Different Groups, 2016

	Population	Victims	Frequency
White	248,484,663	909	273,360
Black	42,975,891	2,220	19,359
Hispanic	57,516,606	483	119,082
Jewish	5,300,000	862	6,148
Muslim	3,450,000	388	8,892
LGBT	10,000,000	1,386	7,215

An average Jew is the most likely to experience a hate crime than any other group – more than blacks, Muslims or the LGBT community. Even more telling, an average Jew is 45 times more likely to experience a hate crime than an average white person.

Jews are clearly not experiencing America like most white Americans.

Coming back to the initial charge of Don Lemon about white men being terrorists on the back of the antisemitic massacre in Pittsburgh, it is useful to look at the perpetrators of antisemitic crimes through the years.

Antisemitic Attacks by Race of Attacker

Year	Incidents	White	Black	White	Black
2016	834	389	118	47%	14%
2015	695	121	31	17%	4%
2014	635	87	20	14%	3%
2013	689	143	35	21%	5%
2012	696	101	20	15%	3%
2011	820	139	16	17%	2%
2010	922	134	25	15%	3%
2009
2008	1055	176	20	17%	2%

The table above is compiled from several FBI reports about hate crimes through the years. A few trends are important to review:

Crimes against Jews are increasing since 2015. After many years of seeing a decline in the number of antisemitic crimes (no data was released in 2009), attacks inched up in 2015 and spiked much higher in 2016. (2017 data is not yet published by the FBI).
An average black person has become much more likely to be the attacker against a Jew. Until 2012, the ratio of antisemitic attacks from whites and blacks were roughly what would be expected. That began to change in 2013 when black assailants began to overtake whites at a statistically significant level. In 2016, the proportion of black attackers spiked again by almost double.
More antisemitic attacks against persons. Through 2015, roughly 30% of attacks against Jews were against their person, while 70% were against property. In 2016, the percentage jumped to 37% of personal attacks. As there were more personal attacks, the identity of the attacker became apparent.

To summarize, the number of antisemitic attacks has indeed been increasing, but more and more of the attacks are coming from blacks, not whites. That is also true generally about all hate attacks, that black people are much more likely to be the assailant. Lastly, violent crimes against Jews have definitely spiked since 2015, (perhaps correlated with Donald Trump’s run for the presidency), but overall, hate crimes have not.

Opinion Review

The progressive media has been hiring greater numbers of minorities who harbor anti-white attitudes. Don Lemon’s comments are not unique.

The New York Times hired a noted racist Sarah Jeong who has proudly posted tweets “White men are bullshit,” “#CancelWhitePeople,” “white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants” and “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men.” The New York Times was unperturbed. It claimed she was just mimicking the attacks against her and she apologized.

Marc Lamont Hill, another commentator on CNN often makes disparaging comments about Israel (saying that the country has no right to exist). Hill, Lemon, Sarsour and others are all part of a left-wing movement which believes that racism can only exist when it is coupled with institutional power. Therefore, any minority – especially those that are under-represented in positions of power like blacks and Muslims in the United States – cannot be considered racist. As the minority, they stand in the position of the oppressed. Any violent actions which they commit are simply “punching up,” trying to level the unfair playing field, which is a primary goal of progressives.

The pairing of the argument that no black person can be racist, is that all white people benefit from white privilege and inherently take advantage of a racist American society. For blacks and Muslims which view Jews as whites – and very powerful ones at that, controlling the banks and media – Jews can never be truly seen as victims.

So Jews are murdered. Again. The neo-Nazis are taking aim at Jews. Again.

And now, for the first time, blacks in America are broadly taking aim at Jews as well, with the smug support of alt-left progressives.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

Farrakhan’s Democrats

Covering Racism

What Kind of Hate Kills?

CNN’s Politicization of Antisemitic Murder

NY Times, NY Times, What Do You See? It Sees Rich White Males

Where’s the March Against Anti-Semitism?

Politicians React to Vile and Vulgar Palestinian Hatred

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

Abbas Knows Racism

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

Racist Calls of Apes and Pigs? Forget Rosanne. Let’s Talk Islam

In the Shadow of the Holocaust, The New York Times Fails to Flag Muslim Anti-Semitism

Black People are Homophobic

If a Black Muslim Cop Kills a White Woman, Does it Make a Sound?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

Posted on October 30, 2018 by First.One.Through

The world has always had people with a wide variety of opinions, and indeed, a wide variety of hatreds. Antisemitism, the oldest of human hatreds, is no different, and has taken on new forms in modern times.

Right-Wing Antisemitism

For thousands of years, Jews were persecuted as “the Other.” They were viewed suspiciously as foreigners by lay-people and demonized for not believing in the preferred prophets by religious leaders. Some countries simply took advantage of the small, weak status of Jews, and engaged in “practical antisemitism” for financial reasons – either to seize their property or to get out of debt which was owed to Jews.

The historic antisemitism was shepherded by popes and kings, local townspeople and crusaders. The manifestation of the hatred was murder and expulsion.

The slaughter of Jews was common in Europe and Russia for hundreds of years, and often rationalized by manufactured excuses (such as blood libels) and effected via torture. The expulsion and “ghetto-ization” of Jews was another means to rid communities of these unwanted Jews.

“The Street of Jews” in Old Strasbourg, France
(photo: First.One.Through)

This was – and continues to be – the nature of right-wing antisemitism: the hatred for the foreigner/ the Other. It continues to exist as people and governments do not internalized that their Jewish neighbors are indeed, their neighbors, and entitled to every protection and rights of citizenship like everyone else.

Left-Wing Antisemitism

Left-wing antisemitism is a newer phenomenon. As part of the liberal camp, the alt-left began with a broad humanistic view of the world. People of all races and religions were welcomed and embraced. Humankind bound all of us together. It was a world vision encapsulated in John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” in which divisions and borders – literal and figurative – ceased to exist. The common collective would live in global harmony.

Such a vision would naturally lead one to conclude that antisemitism is antithetical to such construct. A “brotherhood of man” cannot hate anyone. But time has proven the premise untrue.

The far left-wing of the liberal camp believes that everyone must adhere to their philosophy. ALL national borders, ALL religions, ALL differences based on money or class must be eradicated. Society must be re-imagined and flattened. Man-made artificial differences must be stripped away, so we can embrace our God-given differences such as race and gender. The far left has a quest and insistence on an imagined universal natural order and the shunning of any particular human order.

And so begets left-wing antisemitism.

While right-wing anti-Semites hate Jews for not believing in Jesus, the left-wing anti-Semites hate Jews for believing in religion.
While right-wing anti-Semites will pass laws banning circumcision and ritual slaughter of animals to get rid of Jews, the left-wing will implement the same policies out of secular, humanistic concerns.
While right-wing anti-Semites don’t want Jews to live in their country, the left-wing anti-Semites don’t want Jews to have a country (Israel).
While right-wing anti-Semites will actively murder Jews, the left-wing anti-Semites refuse to protect Jews (read article about how left-wing gay activists fight against providing police protection for Jewish day schools).

The alt-left dislikes Jews for holding on to their particular identity and hates Zionists for holding on to their particular history and heritage. Only a Jew that embraces the universal and sheds the particular (like non-Orthodox Jewish liberals) have a place in their left-wing fringe world.

The Silent Majority?

Today, Jews are caught between two growing and angry mobs on the extremes. They know the history of what the right-wing will do if it obtains power, and are intelligent enough to see the how the left-wing will strip their identities completely.

When liberals attacked President Trump for saying that there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville, VA neo-Nazi march and protest in August 2017, they were correct in remonstrating him that there is no good in people who shout “Jews will not replace us.” But the alt-left was wrong in thinking that using violence as appropriate. Jews seek a peaceful place to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They do not want any violence and will not embrace the vision of either the alt-right or alt-left. One side vilifying the other wins no Jewish converts; Jews are wary of both extremist sides.

How can people reverse the trend and bring people back to the silent – and peaceful – middle? What can stop the Democratic Party from being hijacked by liberals who are becoming more and more extremist? How can the Republican Party – already shrinking – stop from sliding to the alt-right?

There are a number of ideas which have bandied about beyond the scope of this article, which include changing the electoral primary system which tends to feed the extremist base, to firmly establishing and protecting laws to protect individual liberties.

In the day-to-day, it is challenging to live as an open and proud Jew and Zionist in much of the world, for fear of being attacked by both the far-right and the far-left. For people who care about antisemitism, fight the extremists on BOTH sides. Never vote for fringe candidates and do not give them forums.

And do not follow the footsteps of either the alt-left or alt-right: Respect every particular and shun the enforced universal.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

When Hate Returns

Unity – not Uniformity – in the Pro-Israel Tent

The Happy and Smug Bigots of Denmark

The Non-Orthodox Jewish Denominations Fight Israel

Related First.One.Through video:

1001 Years of Expulsions (Schindler’s List)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough