Category Archives: USA

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

Posted on by
3

On December 3, 2015, the fourteen Republican presidential candidates lined up to speak to the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington, DC.  Almost all of them offered “red meat” to the crowd, denouncing the terrible foreign policies of current President Barack Obama with the assistance of his Secretaries of State, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.

One of the foreign policy points that they discussed was the status of Jerusalem.

IMG_3657
Program line-up of speakers at the RJC 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates Forum in Washington, D.C. December 3, 2015
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Jerusalem is often mentioned during campaign season by both Democrats and Republicans. The two main talking points are:

  1. Jerusalem is the united capital of Israel (no recognition of a divided city)
  2. As president, the candidate will move the US embassy to Jerusalem

As a presidential candidate, Senator Obama made these same comments in front of a crowd at an AIPAC conference in 2008, only to reverse his comments the next day.  By the time he ran for re-election in 2012, he gutted the entire pro-Israel agenda from the Democratic platform.  In seven years in office, his two comments proved meaningless.

At the 2015 RJC event, almost all of the Republican candidates mentioned Jerusalem in prepared remarks, while some repeated the two policy points above when responding to questions from RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks.  Except for Donald Trump.

IMG_3640
Senator Marco Rubio addressing foreign policy issues to the RJC
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Trump, seemingly ever-desirous of inflaming passions, refused to give the crowd the same responses that all of the other candidates proffered. For that he was booed by the crowd, which, not surprisingly (based on his campaign to-date), did not seem to bother the candidate that much.

IMG_3655
Donald Trump addressing his deal bona fides to the RJC
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

Campaign Promises versus Delivery of Actions

Presidential candidates always throw out promises to potential voters and donors.  The fact that candidates from both parties state positions popular with an audience is as natural to the political process as lying is to politicians.

So reporters take note of the arrogant presidential front-runner who prides himself in “telling it like it is.”

As no president ever moved the US embassy to Jerusalem despite promises to pro-Israel groups during campaign season, is Trump just “telling it like it is?”  Or is it simply his abrasive personality that cannot help upsetting audiences, whether they be black, Hispanic or Jewish?

There is more than that to extract from Trump’s comments.  At the RJC, he quipped to the Jewish crowd “I’m a negotiator like you folks…Is there anyone in this room who doesn’t negotiate deals? Probably more than any room I’ve ever spoken.”

Putting aside Trump’s anti-Semitic stereotypes in a room that included many doctors and people outside of the business world, it underscored the entire Trump campaign: vote for me, since I’m a successful negotiator.  Being the president of the United States is really just about negotiating deals – whether with Iran or Congress.  As such, I like to leave my options open, and be unpredictable. That’s what makes me a great negotiator.  Don’t pin me down in advance about what I will do, as it hurts the ultimate outcome.

Trump has approached every campaign opportunity with a simple tagline: Trust Me. I’m a Billionaire. I do Great Deals.

However, Trump failed to internalize in his address to “fellow negotiators,” that Israel just doesn’t want a peace deal, it wants actual long-term peace.

A Peace Deal versus Long-Term Peace

A deal comes about when two sides agree on terms.  Typically, each side gives a little to arrive at a compromise.  In a situation where the two parties do not have the same power or requirement to consummate a deal, the exchange will not be a 50-50 compromise.  The party with greater leverage typically uses that leverage to extract better terms.  The party that is more desperate for a deal, usually caves on key items.

In Trump’s world of deals, he sees a more powerful Israel and a more desperate Palestinian population.  As such, he is confident that he can deliver a “good deal” to the Israelis, even while he won’t promise any particular move in advance regarding Jerusalem.

The crowd at the RJC does know some things about negotiating deals.  One of the key requirements is having a real negotiating partner.  Not just a counter-party, who, as Senator Rubio stated, “acknowledges Israel’s right to exist,” but can actually deliver a deal.  Part of the crowd’s disappointment with the Obama administration is its continued hypocrisy of forcing Israel to negotiate with a straw man with no authority or power in acting PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Further, as analyzed in detail, in The Arguments for Jerusalem, there is virtually no argument to support Palestinians’ claim for part of Jerusalem, other than sheer desire.  Part of securing long-term peace means securing Jerusalem.

Lastly, Israel feels alone and vulnerable.  The various anti-Israel United Nations resolutions and BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) proposals around the world feed the feeling of Israel’s isolation.  The Iranian deal produced by the Obama administration instilled tremendous fear of an existential threat to both the Jewish state and the Jewish people.  The terror attacks by Palestinian Arabs and anti-Semitic vitriol from the Palestinian leadership make Israel feel that there will never be peace.

Trump understood that the RJC reflects a powerful group that is strongly supportive an increasingly powerful Jewish State.  But he failed to understand that the Jews in that room included Holocaust survivors and people who walked away from the Twin Towers on 9/11.  Those people are not just looking for a “good deal.”  They want support and true long-term peace.

It was not only Trump’s refusal to mention the Jerusalem points above that got him booed.  Trump’s focus on the “Art of the Deal” instead of understanding that a peace deal is not the same things as true long-term peace will make him an increasingly difficult choice for Israel supporters.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Israeli Peace Process versus the Palestinian Divorce Proceedings

Seeing Security through a Screen

Palestinians are “Desperate” for…

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

A Logical Approach to Immigration from Personal History

Posted on by
4

President Barack Obama and various religious groups stated their strong support for bringing fleeing Syrian refugees into the United States in the fall of 2015. In their effort to convince other Americans of the justice of bringing in those fleeing wars in the Middle East, they drew an analogy to the Holocaust and the ship the MS St. Louis which was turned away from Cuba, the United States and Canada and sent back to Europe, where the Jewish passengers perished in concentration camps.

For their part, various Republicans stated their opposition to admitting so many refugees at this time due to security concerns. They dismissed the analogy to the Holocaust for multiple reasons including the principal facts that in the past there was no terrorism going on in the United States, and the Jews in Europe were ordinary civilians not bearing any arms or involved in any fights.

europe-migrants-greece
Syrian refugees arrive on the Greek island of Kos
August 2015 (photo: Yannis Behrakis/Reuters)

There is room for an honest conversation and approach. Here, I lay out my family’s path to America and lessons that could be applied to refugees today.

Coming Alone

My paternal great-grandfather came to the USA from Russia in 1904.  He fled the various pogroms that were going on in Russia over many years, including the significant Kishinev Pogrom in 1903.  He set out for America alone via Great Britain.  Once he established himself in New York City, he sent for his wife and two children to join him in their new home nine months later.

Many other Jews were leaving Russia during those years for the United States.  The USA was also admitting many Irish, British, Scandinavians, Italians, Hungarians, Germans and Austrians at the same time.  Each group spoke a different language and they all needed to adopt to the common language and culture of America.

And they did.

Fleeing en Masse

My maternal grandmother fled Austria with her immediate family after Kristallnacht in December 1938.  They were part of an enormous wave of Jews fleeing Europe in those months before the start of World War II.

The whole family fled at one time.  Before coming to the US, they were sent to Cuba where they were vetted and processed.  My grandmother and her two children were allowed to travel to New York three months after their arrival, however, her husband was not permitted to join them right away.  My grandfather waited in Cuba for over a year while the US vetted his background, and protected the jobs and security of Americans by slowly introducing thousands of men.

He waited in Cuba with hundreds of other men in the same predicament.

Lessons for Today

When my paternal great-grandfather came to America in 1904, he was part of a wave of immigrants coming to the US for a variety of reasons from a variety of countries.  Over five decades (1880-1930), the US more than doubled its population (from 50 million to 123 million), while the percent of foreign-born people in the country grew to a high of 15 percent.

The situation today is different:

  • Many foreign-born Americans today. Today, the United States is already at a 15% foreign-born population, the highest level in 200 years. Will such a huge and growing percentage hurt the US economy as they migrate into the workforce? Consider that 100 years ago the country was expanding and there were many jobs for manual labor; today the job market requires more skills and technical expertise.
  • Concentration of New Immigrants’ Culture. The immigrants that are coming today do not speak dozens of different languages (Hungarian; Russian; Italian; Swedish; English; German; etc.), but predominantly, just one: Spanish.  Such a large concentration has hurt Spanish integration into American society where many communities remain Spanish-speaking only or bilingual, at best.  The US instituted affirmative action programs uniquely for these Spanish-speakers, while no other immigrant group is afforded such assistance.  Will a large concentration of new Arabic speakers create another permanent sub-group in the US?
  • Current Battlefield.  The United States has been targeted by various radical Islamic groups.  When the MS St. Louis was turned away in 1939, America was not attacked and not at war.  The battlefield is now here.  Therefore, it is more time-sensitive and important to sort those fleeing harm in the Middle East, from those that intend to harm the United States.

The US should indeed consider the history of Jews fleeing Europe before WWII, but appreciate the differences when it is now considering the admittance of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The current refugees are using the methodology of my paternal great-grandfather and sending men before the rest of the families.  According to the UNHCR, 62% of current immigrants in the Mediterranean area are men. They are fleeing into Turkey and then quickly spreading throughout Europe.  That is a bad and potentially dangerous situation and the US should pivot to a more logical approach:

  • Processing: When refugees come en masse, it is important to have a place to process the people. Displaced Person camps are not a new phenomenon. The various Islamic countries which are allies with the US such as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states should not only permanently settle many of their fellow Arabs and Muslims, but should establish DP camps so there is time for other countries to appropriately vet those fleeing harm, while keeping the refugees out of harm’s way.
  • Woman and children first. While not all men are terrorists, the vast majority of terrorists are men. As in the 1930s, women and children should be admitted first while extra vetting is done on the men.  Canada has taken such approach.  In addition to giving time for more extensive background checks, it allows the country to more gradually introduce a large number of adult men into society.

Most men are not terrorists and most Muslims are not terrorists.  But the majority of people attacking the US and its allies are Muslim men.  Proper time and attention is needed to protect people.

Jews from Europe in the 1930s went through a long process of coming to America.  The lesson of WWII is not simply to not turn back refugees to the place where they are fleeing like America did with the MS St. Louis. It is also to use a system to effectively admit refugees.

All governments must take appropriate steps to ensure the safety of its citizens as it welcomes new immigrants.  It is shameful that there is finger-pointing and name-calling from both Democratic and Republican parties as the country attempts to welcome those fleeing war and prosecute those seeking war.

We should incorporate the best suggestions of both parties to help the refugees while placing priority on protecting Americans.

Related First.One.Through articles

The Explosion of Immigrants in the United States

Crises at the Borders

Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA, Fund the UNHCR

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Not Seeing the Eiffel Tower for the Girders

Posted on by
1

In November 2015, right after terrorists attacked Paris, France again, US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of the logic of Islamic terrorists killing the people at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January:

“There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo, and I think everybody would feel that. There was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.”

The statement highlighted many flaws in Kerry’s worldview:

  • A desire to find a logic in the minds of the terrorists, with a very narrow focus (as Obama would say “legitimate grievances”)
  • An implication that the victims were to blame for causing such “legitimate grievances”
  • A desire to assume the entire world shared this flawed worldview.

DSC_0071
Part of the Eiffel Tower
(photo: First.One.Through)

As detailed in “I’m Offended, You’re Dead,” a narrow focus on blasphemy misses the bigger agenda of radical Islam. Refusing to listen to terrorist groups’ own words and charters in which they call for the killing of infidels and destruction of countries is a blindness that simply is unacceptable in the Secretary of State of the most powerful country on earth.

Kerry and the Obama administration’s hyper-narrow focus on these so-called “legitimate grievances” led them to explore ways of trying to placate terrorists:

Is the failure of the US administration’s foreign policies due to blindness from narrow-focus, open-mindedness that the jihadists have “legitimate grievances,” or just bad policies and/or implementation of those strategies?

What do you think?

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Banners of Jihad

Failures of the Obama Doctrine and the Obama Rationale

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Select Support in Fighting Terrorism from the US State Department

Posted on by
12

The month from October 13 to November 13, 2015 witnessed many terrorist attacks in the MENA region and Europe. The US State Department loudly condemned the large scale attacks in Chad, Lebanon and France, but was more muted in its condemnation of the attacks in Israel. Most significantly, the State department voiced its support for the various governments to combat the terrorism, but did NOT give any support to the government of Israel.

Further, over the entire month when numerous Arab terrorist attacks felled Israelis, the US State Department did not issue any additional condemnations.

  October 13 Attack in Israel October 27 Attack in Chad November 12 Attack in Lebanon November 13 Attack in France
Words in statement 88 140 118 149
Condemnation “condemns in the strongest possible terms” “condemns” “strongly condemns” “outrage and sadness”
“Terrorism” Once Once and “horrific and indiscriminate attacks” Four times Twice and “heinous, evil, vile acts.”
Condolences “We mourn any loss of life” “deepest sympathies and condolences” “deepest condolences” “Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected”
Innocent Life “Israeli or Palestinian” “innocent civilians” None “innocent people”
Support to battle terror None. Requests “all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm” “support the governments and people of the Lake Chad Basin region in their ongoing struggle to defeat Boko Haram” “fully support the Lebanese authorities as they conduct their investigation… reaffirms its commitment to Lebanon’s security, and will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Lebanon in confronting terrorism” “must do everything in our power to fight back against what can only be considered an assault on our common humanity…. we stand ready to provide whatever support the French government may require”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called all of the terrorism in the region as a single phenomena of radical Islamic terrorism. “The time has come for the world to wake up and unite in order to defeat terrorism. The time has come for countries to condemn terrorism against us to the same degree that they condemn terrorism everywhere else in the world”

Based on the various remarks by the US State Department, it clearly disagrees.

Kirby
State Department Spokesman John Kirby

October 13, 2015 about Israel:

“The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, which resulted in the murder of three Israelis and left numerous others wounded. We mourn any loss of innocent life, Israeli or Palestinian. We continue to stress the importance of condemning violence and combating incitement. We are in regular contact with the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority. We remain deeply concerned about escalating tensions and urge all sides to take affirmative steps to restore calm and prevent actions that would further escalate tensions.”

October 27, 2015 about Chad:

“The United States condemns the horrific and indiscriminate attacks at the Jambutu Mosque in Yola, Adamawa State, the Central Mosque of Polo Ward in Maiduguri, Borno State, and other locations in Maiduguri on October 23 and 24, 2015. We offer our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and loved ones of the many innocent civilians who were killed and injured.

The apparent use of children – particularly young girls – to commit these attacks is especially heinous, and it provides yet more examples of the horrific measures Boko Haram is willing to take to terrorize civilians in northeast Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin region.

The United States continues to support the governments and people of the Lake Chad Basin region in their ongoing struggle to defeat Boko Haram. We will continue to assist these vital efforts in every appropriate way.”

November 12, 2015 about Lebanon:

“The United States strongly condemns today’s terrorist attack on civilians in the Burj Barajneh neighborhood of Beirut, Lebanon. We extend our deepest condolences to the Lebanese people, particularly the families of the victims, and wish a swift recovery to the wounded.

Today’s events are a troubling reminder of the tremendous challenges Lebanon still faces. Terrorism, such as today’s attacks, seeks to undermine the freedom and security that the people of Lebanon have worked so hard to achieve. We fully support the Lebanese authorities as they conduct their investigation into this act of terror. The United States reaffirms its commitment to Lebanon’s security, and will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Lebanon in confronting terrorism.”

November 13, 2015 about France:

“I share President Obama’s outrage and sadness over the terrorist attacks tonight in Paris.

Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by this assault on innocent people, going about their lives. And I am deeply concerned by ongoing reports of hostages.

These are heinous, evil, vile acts. Those of us who can must do everything in our power to fight back against what can only be considered an assault on our common humanity.

Our embassy in Paris is making every effort to account for the welfare of American citizens in the city, and in the days ahead we stand ready to provide whatever support the French government may require. France is our oldest ally, a friend and a vital partner. We stand with the French people tonight, as our peoples have always stood together in our darkest hours. These terrorist attacks will only deepen our shared resolve.”

Related First.One.Through articles:

US State Department Comments on Terrorism in Israel and the Territories

The US State Department’s Selective Preference of “Status Quos”

Failures of the Obama Doctrine and the Obama Rationale

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Obama’s Select Religious Compassion

Posted on by
10

US President Obama spoke about the United States’ plan to admit refugees from Syria, while he was in Turkey for the G20 Summit. He spoke with emotion in his voice as he dismissed the suggestion that America would not admit Muslim refugees due to security concerns, after the terrorist attacks committed in Paris by the Islamic State killed 129 people just days before.

Obama said “when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”

Obama G20
President Obama speaking at G20 Summit in Turkey
(photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivals/QP)

It is interesting that Obama suddenly feels that religion should not be a test for allowing people to live in certain places.

Just last year, Obama’s White House Spokesman made the following comment about Jews moving into apartments they recently purchased in the eastern part of Jerusalem: “The US condemns the recent occupation of residential buildings in the neighborhood of Silwan by people whose agenda provokes tensions.”

Those “people whose agenda provokes tensions” were ordinary Jews moving into apartments they purchased.

The White House condemned Jews from moving into their legal residences because Palestinian Arabs were angry about having Jewish neighbors. Does Arab anti-Semitism dictate American policy or “compassion”? Why did the anger of Palestinian Arabs get an endorsement, while the concerns of Americans about their own safety get condemnation from Obama?

Obama is correct that America was founded on the principle of religious tolerance. That is who “we” are.

That Obama would uniquely advocate for the banning of Jews from living in their own homes, says who he is.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Real and Imagined Laws of Living in Silwan

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Failures of the Obama Doctrine and the Obama Rationale

Posted on by
9

Historians have begun to debate the “Obama Doctrine” and its impact on global stability. The Doctrine itself is not so novel or controversial.  It is the “Obama Rationale,” his underlying worldview, and how he applies the doctrine’s principles, that are causing the destabilization of global security.

Obama Doctrine
President Obama defining his “Obama Doctrine” with Thomas Freidman
April 2015 (photo: New York Times)

The Obama Doctrine
“We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities”

In April 2015, New York Times Op-Ed columnist Thomas Freidman penned a piece called “Iran and the Obama Doctrine.” In a long interview with US President Barack Obama, Freidman came to conclusions about Obama’s approach to foreign affairs. In short:

  • Engagement over Sanctions, Isolation and War. Obama stated a problem ignored is not a problem solved.  However, dialogue opened a possibility to change people’s hearts and minds. Diplomacy should always be the first option, both with allies and foes.
  • A Single Foreign Policy. The Executive Branch of the United States government must be the sole representative of US foreign policy. Senators and congresspeople should not engage with world leaders with messages that contradict those decided by the president.

Liberals and Conservatives may agree or disagree with this formula for engaging the world. Presumably, many would agree with these approaches in general.

Then why the terrible polls for Obama’s foreign policy?

Failed Implementation

There is a significant percentage of Americans who strongly disagree with Obama’s handling of foreign policy. Those reasons may have less to do with the Obama Doctrine itself, but how it is applied.

  • Negotiations with Foes. Engaging with friend or foe should yield results to one’s liking. Many Americans criticized the Obama team in that it did not extract enough concessions from negotiations.
    • Cuba was opened up with nothing to show for it.
    • Syria was given a pass for using chemical weapons even though Obama threatened the country with military force.
    • Iran was left with an enormous nuclear infrastructure, even though sanctions had pushed the country to the brink.
    • Russia actively established itself on the world stage including annexing part of Ukraine, as it knew that Obama would not take military action.
    • Engagement is okay, if it achieved the desired outcome, but Obama showed a pattern of coming away with only modest achievements at great costs. He resorted to touting the engagement itself as the victory, rather than tangible goals.
  • Engagement with Allies. Foreign policy is equally about managing relationships with allies. Yet Obama has shown an inability to keep allies close, work for American interests and make reforms, as necessary.
    • Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was a longtime ally of the United States, and Obama made a point of visiting Cairo in his first international trip. Yet Obama quickly turned on this one-time ally and blessed his overthrow.
    • Israel has rarely had such a cold treatment form any US administration. The lack of trust has not produced an environment conducive to peace negotiations.
    • Saudi Arabia is an oppressive regime that is nevertheless a US ally. The kingdom has never been so unsure of America’s leadership, nor has it beheaded as many of its own citizens.
    • Turkey’s leader Erdogan has been described by Obama as being one of his closest allies.  Yet Turkey has dragged its feet in allowing the US to use its territory to fight ISIS and prefers using its Turkish troops to bomb Kurds than ISIS.
    • Despite an established agreement with Ukraine, Obama let the country fall to Russia.
  • Terrorism. More than almost any issue since 9/11/2001, has the world been focused on terrorism. Obama has been unsure how to utilize his “Doctrine” when the counter-party is not an official government, but a terrorist organization.
    • Islamic State/ ISIS has been targeted for destruction by Obama in words, but he has engaged in militarily confronting the group only sporadically. Meanwhile, the group continues to expand its attacks in Lebanon, Egypt (against a Russian airliner) and France.
    • Boko Haram; Al-Shabaab, Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups do not get any engagement from Obama at all. Obama considers them local problems for local governments to handle and does not consider the global aspirations of the affiliates groups.  Never mind that these group like Ansar al-Sharia in Libya have attacked and killed Americans, including Ambassador Stevens.

The Obama Doctrine by itself is not that controversial to many Americans, however, it’s implementation is roundly criticized.  Further, the underlying Obama worldview which governs his approach to engagement is considered a disaster.

The Obama Rationale

President Obama has spent seven years outlining his thoughts as to why people use terrorism. The rationale leads directly to his proposed solutions, so appreciating those views is key to understanding his tactics.

In February 2015, not long after the terrorist attacks in Paris in January 2015, several world leaders met to discuss ways of combatting terror. President Obama addressed the American people and outlined his thoughts about the root causes of terrorism and his associated game plan:

  • Frustration with Injustice and Corruption. Obama stated that “anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them with no chance of improving their lives.”
  • No Outlet other than Through Violence. He added that the frustration was exacerbated by “[g]overnments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change”
  • Misguided Belief that West is at War with Islam. Obama stated that some clerics and groups have a “twisted interpretation of religion” and that “al Qaeda and ISIL peddling the lie that the United States is at war with Islam”

The Obama rationale for terrorism is that there is a very small number of people who have twisted religion and then prey upon people’s “legitimate grievances” (his words).  His approach to addressing this terrorist threat is an extension of his Obama Doctrine.

The Obama Solution to Terrorism

  • Broadcast the Voices of Muslim Moderates. “The world must continue to lift up the voices of Muslim clerics and scholars who teach the true peaceful nature of Islam”  Americans should show “support of their family, friends, teachers and faith leaders.”
  • Export Democracy.  While Obama has shown a reluctance to nation-build, he nevertheless thinks that advancing democracy would help stop terrorism: “Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.”
  • Community Development.  Showing his roots as a community organizer, Obama advocates for local job creation, whereby “economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.” That’s why spokespeople like Marie Hart from the State Department continue to push the notion that a jobs program is the key to stop terrorism.
  • Repeat that the US is NOT at war with Islam. Obama consistently repeats over and again that America is not at war with Islam and that Islam is a religion of peace.  Such efforts, he believes, keep the terrorism from spreading to America’s shores and allies.

These approaches to terrorism are very much like the Obama Doctrine: engage and assist people in reaching democratic aspirations.  The small number of terrorists with hateful ideology would be eliminated (using “all capabilities”), while the masses should be “engaged”.  As Obama said:

“Our campaign to prevent people around the world from being radicalized to violence
is ultimately a battle for hearts and minds.”

However, this approach has not slowed the advance of terrorism which continues to kill in France; Egypt; Israel; Lebanon; Nigeria; Kenya and elsewhere.

Critics of Obama say the battle is not “FOR the hearts and minds” but “OF the hearts and minds” of a broad number of Muslims.  They point out the murderous governments throughout the Muslim world, and the gross intolerance of their societies, that are not just offended by what people say or do, but who they are.

Many of these critics believe that the terrible state of global security is solely because of Obama’s worldview.  They argue that there is no administration failure to execute; the team is executing the Obama Doctrine according to the Obama Rationale: Give the various regimes money, jobs, trading, asylum and the like.  Remove American troops from the MENA region, engage economically, and peace will prevail (or if it doesn’t, it will be a local problem).

Obama’s critics dismiss this approach and believe the “clash of civilizations” goes beyond a handful of terrorists.  The world is too flat and integrated to believe such a naïve approach will keep America and its allies safe.

As Americans consider their next president, it will be important to not just consider whether they agree with the Obama Doctrine, but with the Obama worldview. If terrorism continues to occur over the election season, the Obama Rationale will take center stage in the debates.

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Joe Biden Stabs a Finger at Israel

Posted on by
11

The Union of Reform Judaism held its biennial in November 2015.  One of the speakers was US Vice President Joe Biden.

biden reform
US Vice President Joe Biden addressed the Union for Reform Judaism
November 2015

The Vice President said in his prepared remarks that the US- Israeli ties were close, particularly on matters of security.  However, Biden berated Israel about a prospective member of the Israeli administration who had said derogatory things while a private citizen some time ago, about US President Obama and US Secretary of State John Kerry.  Biden waved his finger and scolded Israel: “There is no excuse, there should be no tolerance for any member or employee of the Israeli administration referring to the president of United States in derogatory terms. Period, period, period, period!”

It is interesting for Biden to become so irate at a private Israeli citizen making jabs at the US administration.  That is the nature of free speech and press.  Israelis criticize their own government with much worse language.

And it is quite a bit of hypocrisy when a current member of the Obama administration called the Israeli Prime Minister a “chickenshit.”

It has been official US policy under the Obama administration to embarrass, berate and belittle Netanyahu.  Whether calling him names; leaving him stewing alone in a waiting room and skipping normal photo opportunities; having his Democratic party loyalists boycott Netanyahu speeches; or even Obama himself declining Netanyahu’s invitation to address the Israeli Knesset, and instead address the “real Israelis,” as if the Knesset was not a democratically-elected representative body.  Obama’s disdain for Netanyahu was so well known and public, that he and French Prime Minister Sarkozy discussed Netanyahu being a liar and how much they dislike spending time with him.

Never mind the current official comments and actions of the Obama administration towards Netanyahu.  Biden loudly lectured a Jewish audience about old comments made by a private Israeli who might possibly become an Israeli politician (even though Netanyahu had already backed away from the candidate).

Further, the Obama administration didn’t seem to mind the Iranian government actively chanting “Death to America.”  It was able to sit and negotiate with Iran for years during the verbal assaults, release $150 billion and pave a pathway to nuclear weapons.  How can the administration then lash out against old comments made by a private citizen of an allied country?

Related First.One.Through articles:

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

Seeing Security through a Screen

Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Active and Reactive Provocations: Charlie Hebdo and the Temple Mount

Posted on by
21

Leaders of the Western World came to the defense of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in early 2015, after radical Islamists gunned down the staff in their offices. Those leaders stood in solidarity with the French in the name of freedom of speech. Yet those same leaders have not rallied to the side of Israel while Islamic radicals murder and attempt to murder Israelis for an even more basic principle.

empty-street-in-Jerusalem-during-Yom-Kippur
Empty Street in Jerusalem

Active Provocation

An act of active provocation is one in which the action itself is specifically designed to provoke and upset an individual or group. The person taking the action does not have any benefit from the activity, other than the enjoyment of upsetting someone.

For example, when Pamela Geller held a “Draw Mohammed” contest in Texas in May 2015, the event was designed to upset Muslims. The action of portraying the Islamic prophet in physical form is considered highly insulting to many Muslims, and several people came to the event with the goal of killing participants for the sacrilegious act.

While people came out in defense of Geller for exercising her right of free speech, few would argue that Geller had any personal benefit from her actions other than getting satisfaction in hurting the feelings of Muslims.

Reactive Provocation

Reactive provocation is significantly different from active provocation. Such activity has personal benefit and there is no intention of malice. For example, a person may eat a turkey sandwich which they truly enjoy, even though another person may be a vegetarian and find the action upsetting.

Everyone has sensitivities. How far could a society extend itself to ban certain “normal” activities because some people may be offended by the actions?

Would a government ban gay people from holding hands in public if it upsets the values of some religious people? Would it ban all meat because it upsets vegetarians?  It would be impossible to navigate such a world in which anyone could object and block any action.

America was founded on the principle of the “pursuit of happiness” and has defended such right in cases of active provocation such as Pamela Geller in the US and Charlie Hebdo abroad. How could it do less for situations of reactive provocations?

Western Values versus Personal Interest

Various western societies offer a wide spectrum of freedoms including, speech, assembly and religion meant to cover elements of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Western culture is designed to offer space for different people to live and interact, even if various belief systems are in conflict. The expectation is for tolerance of different and possibly offending views.

The raison d’etre of Charlie Hebdo is to offend. It’s cartoons are examples of active provocation whereby people deliberately upset others. While the comedic value of some of the pieces could be debated, the principle of freedom of speech is core to western society and fiercely protected. While writing a magazine is not a common activity, free speech is a daily activity of everyone, so the leaders of western countries stood together to defend active provocation and all forms of free speech.

hebdo march
World Leaders come out in solidarity with France
January 2015

In Israel, people also attempt to live with ordinary freedoms.  Like other democracies, they include freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. But such freedoms sometimes offend radical Muslims.

The Temple Mount has maintained established visiting hours for Jews and non-Jews alike for any decades.  People of all faiths visit the site.  They do so as a natural act of visiting an incredible tourist site or because of religious conviction.  They do not visit as a pretext of causing offense to anyone.  If there are some Islamic extremists who are upset that Jews visit, that is a reaction based on that person’s anti-Semitic biases, an example of reactive provocation.

Muslims have become more worried about Jewish visitation to the Temple Mount which they consider holy as well.  The number of Jews visiting the Temple Mount doubled over the past five years to about 11,000 in 2014.  It is still a paltry sum compared to the estimated 4 million Muslims who come to the site each year. However, fears of the growing Jewish presence has made Muslims begin to attack Jews throughout Israel.

So why is the western world so cavalier about the carnage in Israel from Islamic radicals, while shaken to its core for the Hebdo killings? Is freedom of religion and access a lesser democratic value than speech?  Is France considered more western than Israel? Perhaps some believe that to be true.

It is also a fact that Europe and America do not have shrines holy to Islam, so the situation of the al Aqsa mosque is really a narrow problem for Israel to handle.  Western ambivalence may not be so much a function of values as it is proximity.

How embarrassing that the narrow scope of the champions of democracy shows that they are less interested with values than personal interests.  The world should loudly condemn Islamic terrorism and support freedoms which are enshrined in Israeli law and democratic ideals.

Related First One Through articles:

My Terrorism

I’m Offended, You’re Dead

Selective Speech

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

New York Times: “Throw the Jew Down the Well”

Posted on by
3

Sacha Baron Cohen, a comedian from the United Kingdom, developed some fascinating characters as part of his comedic routine. One of them was Borat, a tall, awkward man who hailed from Kazakhstan.

borat
Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat

Cohen used Borat as a tool on unsuspecting Americans to elicit responses which may be funny or frightful in his movie, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.” Cohen counter-balanced Borat’s large 6’3″ frame with a friendly, simple and naïve demeanor, such that ordinary people responded to him in a more open manner than they would have for another large adult male stranger. Once within their sphere of hospitality, he engaged people in various outrageous actions.  Cohen captured those bizarre interactions for the public to witness.

Borat was introduced as a foreigner, unfamiliar with the social norms of the USA. As people interacted with him, they quickly saw evidence of his primitive, racist, homophobic, misogynistic and anti-Semitic side. For example, when he attended a dinner party in the South, his lack of etiquette was so extreme he did not know how to use the bathroom.  As the American hosts viewed themselves as extremely enlightened, they excused his outrageous behavior.  The comedy of Baron Cohen/Borat was specifically about revealing people in such awkward and “dark” moments.

“Throw the Jew down the Well“

Another scene from the movie placed Borat in a cowboy bar in Tucson, Arizona. Borat was invited to sing a song from his home country to the crowd. The audience of men and women were at first unsure of this foreigner in a cowboy hat, as he started his song “In my Country there is a Problem.” It was clear from the first verse that Borat could not really sing, play the guitar or rhyme. But the crowd wanted to be hospitable and welcomed this stranger who was trying to fit in.

By the second verse, the song became rabidly anti-Semitic. Jews were blamed for taking everyone’s money and causing problems in his country. Imagery of Jews being wild animals with claws, gnashing teeth and horns were sung aloud, and the crowd joined in louder with each verse. The women – much more than the men – loudly clapped and sung along to the anti-Semitic verses with free abandon. One would imagine a scene from the Hofbrahaus in Munich 1920 more than Tucson 2006.

Sacha Baron Cohen is himself a Jew who is likely not an anti-Semite nor a racist nor a homophobe.  He used the Borat character to force people to confront their own biases in unconventional ways. His use of a big fish-out-of-water persona made people want to embrace this gentle giant. The American-way of hospitality placed people in a situation where they were closely engaged with little room to maneuver. They were left with a choice of either being astonished and sickened (as were the southerners at the dinner party) or engaged, as were the anti-Semites in the Tucson cowboy bar.  However, the Southerners took the effort to correct Borat, while the cowboys embraced his foul behavior and language.

The New York Times embrace of the Primitive

The New York Times has long looked on the Arab world with sympathetic eyes. Whether in advocacy for Arabs in urging the Obama administration to welcome thousands of Arab refugees, and pushing for building of a mosque at ground zero, or in ignoring Arab crimes through the use of double standards for people from a “primitive” culture, the NYT embraced the Arab world.

Like Borat, Arabs are from a different culture and unfamiliar with America’s progressive ways.  As enlightened people, the writers for the Times have sought to engage and embrace these people. For example, Saudi Arabia is rarely called out as one of the most repressive regime in the world which decapitates minors in the streets; it is just an American ally.

No where is the treatment more apparent than in the warmth shown to the acting President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.  The soft-faced nearly 80 year old man is repeatedly described as a “moderate,” who seeks “non-violent” means to achieve “independence” for Palestinian Arabs. In the Times desire to see Abbas succeed, they turned deaf to his various statements and actions:

  • Abbas’s inability to govern the Palestinian Authority territories is never blamed on his ineffectual leadership.
  • The Times rarely mentions that Abbas is so unpopular among Palestinians that he would have lost any election since 2007 according to every poll (if he ever had the ability to have an election).
  • Abbas’s phd paper on Holocaust denial is almost never discussed.  When it is, the Times makes an effort to say that he now respects the history of the Holocaust, even though he explicitly said the opposite
  • When polls show that the Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people on the planet, the Times just brushed over the fact as “not particularly surprising“
  • The Hamas Charter call for the destruction of Israel and death of Jews is rarely mentioned, and Hamas is almost never labeled a terrorist group
  • Palestinians engaged in the most honor killings per capita is ignored and blame assigned to Israel
  • Abbas’s calls to “defend al Aqsa by all means possible” is never described as an incitement to violence

The Times opted to not take a constructive approach like the Southern lady who taught Borat how to use the bathroom. It never sought to educate its readers about the misstatements and outright lies of the Palestinian Arabs. Instead, the Times just ignored that Abbas or the Palestinians were incompetent or said and did anything wrong.

However, on October 8, 2015, the Times decided to move past being deaf and joined the Palestinians’ anti-Semitic chants.

“Throw the Jew from the Temple Mount“

In an article entitled “Historical Certainty Proves Elusive at Jerusalem’s Holiest Place” Rick Gladstone wrote that there is little evidence that Jewish Temples existed on the Temple Mount.

20151009_065901New York Times article Refuting the Existence of the Jewish Temples
October 8, 2015

As if echoing the Palestinian Arab and Jordanian Arab narrative that Jews have no history in Israel or Jerusalem, that they are trying to “Judaize” the city and “falsify history,” the Times wrote a piece that completely misrepresented archaeological findings.  Indeed, the only religion that has archaeological proof of being on the Temple Mount is Judaism (there are no structures to show where Jesus walked or Mohammed’s night journey).

The Times’ echoed the calls of anti-Semites who seek to deny Jews of their history and basic rights.  The Times effectively moved from the back of the Tucson cowboy bar to the front row singing and clapping along with Abbas:

“Throw the Jew from the Temple Mount
so my country can be free!
You must grab him by his horns
and we will have a big party!”

Now that the Times has more openly embraced its anti-Semitic Borat persona, perhaps we will soon see articles that Jews are really from Khazar and have no connection to the bible at all.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

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

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The Relationship of Man and Beast

Posted on by
6

“18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.
I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.”  (Genesis 2:18-20)

 

Biblical Review:
Man’s Superiority over Animals

Humans believe they are the smartest animals on Earth. While our three pound brain is not the largest in the animal kingdom (sperm whales have 17 pound brains), we humans tend to commend ourselves for our ability to walk upright, develop sophisticated machines, consider things beyond our senses and create the selfie stick.

Religion has cemented this bias. The Old Testament unveiled the story of the creation of the world with plants and animals arriving first and then man – Adam – being the final ultimate act of creation.  Man’s creation was preceded with a statement:

“26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” (Genesis 1:26)

Man was the only creature “made in God’s image” and the only creation which was specifically tasked with “ruling” over other species. The superiority of Man over animals could not be more clearly laid out.

The Quran similarly detailed man’s dominion over beasts: “And the cattle, He has created them for you.  You have in them warm clothing and (other) advantages, and of them you eat.  And therein is beauty for you, when you drive them back (home) and when you send them out (to pasture).  And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with great distress to yourselves.  Surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful.  And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament.  And He creates what you know not.” (Quran 16:5-8)

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, by Wenzel Peter

Man’s Relationship with Animals

Interestingly, the story in the Old Testament quickly moved past man’s supremacy over beasts. We soon read about a lonely man needing companionship so God brings the animals to man to ease the pain of solitude.  While the Quran relayed some benefits of ruling over animals (food, clothing, beasts of burden), the Old Testament relayed that animals could be a source of company and intimacy.

The bible pivots from man’s dominant position quickly.  When a snake tricked man into eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (maybe it was mad at being passed over by Adam?), man lost his place in paradise. Suddenly, man understood that he was not only naked, but had reason to fear animals as well.

Despite this more complicated relationship between man and beast, during the story of Noah and the flood, man was given the responsibility for saving all of the animals.  God could have instructed Noah to build a small boat to save only himself and his family, but instead tasked man with helping animals as well. Superiority and fear yielded to responsibility and care.

Later generations in the bible would principally treat animals as inferior life forms for man to enjoy, whether by eating them, dressing with their skin, using them to work the fields, and offering them for sacrifices.  The bible principally describes helping animals only to keep the animals alive for future service; there was no discussion of them as companions.

Overall, the Pentateuch discussed plant life in a much more gentle fashion than animals.  Consider Deuteronomy 20 which discussed going to war:  All living things – including animals – were to be killed when fighting people with detestable belief systems.  The animals belonging to those people were considered corrupted by the actions of the people and therefore worthy of annihilation.  However, the fruit trees that belonged to those same people were spared.

All items from the ground are kosher and permissible to eat, but animals are more complicated: they are innately kosher or non-kosher. But even kosher animals can become corrupted.

Pets Today:
Companions Again

Americans have grown very close to their pets and have begun to “humanize” them. People are now more inclined to give their pets human names (Bo) versus “pet names” like “Rover” a generation ago. Approximately 76% of pet owners consider their pets to be full members of the family and they treat their pets accordingly.

Pet ownership in the United States rises every year. There are an estimated 78 million dogs and 86 million cats in the US in 2015 (APPA). That figure compares to 74 million children under the age of 18 in the country. Yes, there are more cats and dogs than kids. Consider further that the US pet industry is about $60 billion. That is more than the entire planet spends on babies.

Entirely new industries have sprung up around pets over the past several years: pet insurance; pet day care, pet-friendly hotels and restaurants. There is even a special TV channel, DogTV, just for dogs to watch.

We have taken animals from the fields into our homes and call them members of the family.

The biblical story of superiority over animals evolved over time. The power of creation imbued man with power over animals. Stories of destruction were coupled with man’s responsibilities.  But the biblical discussion of animal companionship was very fleeting. Man rejected animals right at the beginning of history, so God created woman to be his partner.  Thereafter, the role of animals became utilitarian.

Today, animals give us comfort.  We have added pets to our families in even greater numbers than children. We read stories of the flood to our children and skim the vileness of man and their annihilation, and celebrate the many animals in the world’s first zoo.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is that all living things had a common ancestor. Beyond considering man’s physical evolution, it is worth noting mankind’s emotional evolution in its relationship with his fellow creations.

Related First One Through article:

Israel, Mother Nature’s Son

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis