John Kerry: The Declaration and Observations of a Failure

Posted on December 29, 2016 by First.One.Through

Over the past decades, the literary world has seen the introduction of a new specialized category of books enter the mainstream and become very popular: do-it-yourself books, or DIY for short. Books like the “…For Dummies” have been written on a wide range of topics, ranging from auto repair, to football, to computer programming. People believed that they could understand – or at least become proficient at a subject – by reading a book by someone they never heard of or knew.

Yet people purchased the books without knowledge of the author for a few reasons: 1) they obviously wanted to learn the material, and wanted an easy to understand tutorial; 2) they knew the brand covered lot of topics and was widely popular; and 3) they may have heard good reviews from a friend. One would imagine that if the people heard bad reviews or knew that the author was a failure, no one would touch the books.

Is this formulation true in politics? If people want to learn something from a former politician, would they care if the person was a failure? If no one they respect likes the politician’s opinion would they listen? Or would the brand of their position (their title) hold enough clout that they would pay any attention to what that person had to say?

US Secretary of State John Kerry traveled the world for the last four years with a fantastic brand: the global diplomat for the most powerful country in the world and a leading democracy. His credentials opened doors in every part of the globe, as countries sought to trade with US, or to obtain US protection and aid.

But Kerry’s impact on the Middle East was terrible. The eight years of the Obama administration watched the region spiral into killing fields and a race for nuclear weapons. One of the results for the failures in word and deed has been the worst refugee crisis in generations, with millions of Muslims and Arabs fleeing into the western world.

Americans noted the failed foreign policy (and domestic too), and voted out any continuation of Obama’s policies.

So as he was leaving office, Obama doubled down on his failure. He gave tacit approval to a UN Security Council resolution condemening Israelis living across an invisible line as “illegal,” and then his Secretary of Defense John Kerry condemned Israel in a long speech. Presumably the speech was for Israelis and Palestinian Arab consumption, as well as their leadership. It was likely intended for in the incoming Trump administration as well.

The issue for all of these consumers is that the authors are confirmed failures. The Obama administration could not get the Palestinian Authoity to even engage seriously with Israel. Instead, the PA sought unilateral action at the United Nations to become a state. It was rewarded by the Obama administration with another UN victory, but no movement towards peace.

With such a tarnished image, and a step from retirement, why would Israelis or their leadership pay heed to the actions and comments of Obama and Kerry? Have any of their supporters “bought the book” and think there are pearls of wisdom to be found?

The Pro Israel Community Reaction

Virtually the entire pro-Israel community condemned Kerry’s remarks. AIPAC, the Zionist Organization of America, Bnai Brith, the Simon Weisenthal Center and the Anti Defamation League were all highly critical of Kerry’s thoughts about Israel.

Only the left-wing fringe group, J Street, that has long pushed the Obama administration to condemn Israel at the United Nations, applauded the UN resolution and Kerry’s speech. In language that masked the far flung liberal mindset of the group, it stated that such a move was “bipartisan” in the hope of swinging would-be “pro-Israel, pro-peace” consumers to ingest the bile.

John Kerry spoke to the world about the centrality of Israel’s security to any peace agreement, even after a history of the State Department giving only scant lip service to Israel’s need to fight terrorism, while the US enabled Iran to keep its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure. Kerry said that “friendships require mutual repect.” Is that why Obama snubbed Israel by turning down an invitation to speak to the Knesset and opted to address Israeli students – long before Netanyahu came to address Congress in 2015?

Neither the Israeli people nor Israeli leadership was listening to Kerry. The Trump administration made clear that they think the Obama/ Kerry policies were total failures. The major pro-Israel groups came out against the UN vote and Kerry’s speech, and went on to educate the broader pro-Israel community that the remarks were disgraceful, and the approach unacceptable.

Which leaves a person to wonder who Kerry was actually addressing.

The reality was that the speech was not meant as a call to action for Israel or the incoming Trump administration to move the region towards peace. Kerry was addressing the Arab world and telling them they were right all along. Kerry followed a long list of Democrats seeking a lavish life in retirement, like Jimmy Carter, the Clinton Foundation and Al Gore.

Kerry used the western world as a vehicle to show his devotion to the Palestinian cause. He treated the Israelis as mere tools so that he can enjoy the splendors of the Arab world.

For those that seek actual peace in the Middle East, the declaration and observations of a failure should be treated in the manner it deserves.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

Select Support in Fighting Terrorism from the US State Department

US State Department Comments on Terrorism in Israel and the Territories

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Samantha Power Breakthrough: Violence Erodes the Prospects for Peace

Posted on December 26, 2016 by First.One.Through

“1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace;”

US Security Council Resolution 2334

On December 23, 2016, the United States opted to abstain from a UN Security Council resolution that allowed the body to condemn all Israeli “settlements” living east of the 1949 Armistice Lines/ the Green Line as illegal. Samantha Power, the US Ambassador to the United Nations addressed the council after the vote to explain her reasons.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power
December 23, 2016

Ms. Power began her speech by underscoring “the United States’ deep and long-standing commitment to achieving a comprehensive and lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.” But her rationale really took aim with the goal of two states, not a comprehensive peace.

The Israeli Actions

She claimed that the “United States’ long-standing position that Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967:

undermines Israel’s security,
harms the viability of a negotiated two-state outcome, and
erodes prospects for peace and stability in the region.”

Each point is deeply flawed.

Israel is the tiniest and most isolated country in the Middle East and much of the world. It is only 15km across (without the West Bank) around its most densely populated areas. The capital sits on the border of the West Bank, a situation that is impossible from a security perspective, especially considering the country has been in a state of war with its neighbors for virtually the entirety of its existence. To state that enlarging its narrow borders undermines its security is obviously false.

The second comment that the settlements harm the viability of a Palestinian State is ridiculous. Annexing portions of Area C of the West Bank such as E1 and Maale Adumim would make a Palestinian State in the West Bank 15km across at a single narrow place- not for many kilometers as is the case for Israel. The argument that a Palestinian state cannot be viable if it is 15km narrow at a single point underscores that Israel should annex the entire middle of the land.

Ms. Power reserved her comment about peace – theoretically what most concerned her – for the very end. Because the connection to settlements it is nonsensical. How can Jews in a new Palestinian State undermine peace? Doesn’t peace mean getting along?

Not for the Obama administration.

Power clarified that: “One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.”

If that is indeed the US position that peace can only be achieved by completely separating the parties, ensuring that no Jews be allowed to live east of the Green Line, then it would stand to reason that the US must be promoting the notion that all Arabs be expelled from Israel. How can Israel incorporate over 1 million Arabs if separation is the key to peace?

The essence of Power’s comments is that Israel thinks about peace the wrong way. It isn’t about coexistence, trade and commerce. It’s about distinct existences. Israel is looking for normalization while the Arabs are in divorce proceedings.

Palestinian Actions

The Obama administration pulled their world-view together when Power addressed the problems stemming from the actions of Palestinian Arabs:

“For Palestinian leaders, that means recognizing the obvious: that in addition to taking innocent lives – the incitement to violence, the glorification of terrorists, and the growth of violent extremism erodes prospects for peace, as this resolution makes crystal clear.“

The comment that violent extremism and the murder of innocents “erodes the prospects for peace,” is not stating the obvious; it NEGATES the obvious by destroying its very definition. Killing someone doesn’t undermine the prospects for living, it ENDS living.

When acting-President of the Palestinian Authority names schools, squares and soccer tournaments after terrorists who killed civilians, it CONTRADICTS peace.
When Abbas takes to the loudspeakers asking for martyrs to converge on Jerusalem, he NEGATES peace.
When Palestinian Arabs vote the terrorist group Hamas – which has the most anti-Semitic charter in the world which calls for the complete destruction of Israel and murder of Jews – to a whopping 58% of the parliament, they DESTROY peace.
When 93% of Palestinian Arabs are anti-Semites, they NULLIFY peace.
When the UN Secretary General says that he supports the integration of Hamas into a Palestinian unity government, the global body UNDERMINES peace.

Power conflated the “prospects for peace” and a new Palestinian state. She essentially argued that Palestinian Arabs are only killing now to get a new state, and will stop when they get independence. Such approach willfully ignored the inconvenient fact that Hamas launched three wars from Gaza since Israel withdrew from the region.

Power recognized the threat of violence; she just felt that enough military hardware would make the inconvenient violence manageable:

“Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure there is not a new terrorist haven next door. President Obama and this administration have shown an unprecedented commitment to Israel’s security because that is what we believe in.”

While Power argued that the United States would supply enough military equipment to ensure a viable and secure Israel, even in narrow borders, she stated the armament was intended to combat “a new terrorist haven.” She seemed to have missed the point that the terrorists are not new. They are part of the established elected Palestinian government itself, and supported by the world body that just condemned Israel.

When Power opened her remarks at the UNSC discussing a “comprehensive and lasting peace,” she was only addressing the Israelis. Only the Israelis are seeking peace; the Palestinian Arabs are seeking a state.

The notion that Palestinian Arab violence undermines the “prospects for peace” is wishful thinking that the violence will stop once a Palestinian State is created. The violence that is incited and celebrated by Palestinian leadership is pure evil, and undermines the rationale of allowing such a state to come into being at all. While all people deserve freedom and self-determination, should the United Nations actively endorse the creation of a violent and anti-Semitic regime as a pathway towards peace and stability?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

An Inconvenient Truth: Palestinian Polls

Stabbing the Palestinian “Right of Return”

“Peace” According to Palestinian “Moderates”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Ban Ki Moon Understands Why People Kill Israelis

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

On December 19, 2016, a Turkish policeman assassinated the Russian Ambassador to Turkey. The killer loudly proclaimed in front of rolling cameras that he did so because of the killings happening in Syria in the civil war that has claimed 500,000 lives. He called out the city of Aleppo, which was under siege by the Syrian Assad regime with the assistance of Russia.

The murder of Russian diplomat Andrey Karlov in Ankara.
(Photo: REUTERS)

The United Nations outgoing Secretary General Ban Ki Moon condemned the assassination. His comment implied that there was no basis for the attack.

“The Secretary-General is appalled by this senseless act of terror and emphasizes that there can be no justification for the targeting of diplomatic personnel and civilians.”

Did Ban Ki Moon not watch the video or read the transcript of why the murderer committed the act? Did he not appreciate Russia’s role in the massacre in Aleppo? Or did he feel that the murder of a Russian diplomat had nothing to do with alleviating the suffering of the Syrian people?

By way of comparison, consider how Ban Ki Moon discussed the Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israelis in 2014. He said:

“We must address these underlying issues – including mutual recognition, occupation, despair and the denial of dignity — so people do not feel they have to resort to violence as a means of expressing their grievances.”

When it came to the murder of Israeli civilians, the UNSG seemed to sympathize with the Palestinian Arab murderers. He did not speak of “senseless acts of terror,” but of the “underlying issues” behind the attacks. He did not say that there was “no justification” for the murder of innocents, but that the killings were a natural means of “expressing their grievances.”

As discussed in “The United Nations’ Adoption of Palestinians, Enables It to Only Find Fault With Israel,” the United Nations was established as a forum for countries to engage with each other. However, the UN actively advocates for the Palestinian Arabs, as it considers that the UN itself as the guardians of these stateless wards. As such, it views all attacks against Israeli civilians – including children – through a unique lens of empathy and support for the Palestinian Arab narrative.

While more Syrians have been killed in the year 2016 than the combined total of all Palestinian Arabs, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians in every war with Israel since 1948, the UN cannot comprehend the grievances of Syrians or why they might “resort to violence.”

While at the same time, no murder of Israelis can ever be “senseless” for the United Nations.

Related First.One.Through articles:

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

Ban Ki Moon Has No Solidarity with Israel

Ban Ki Moon Stands with Gaza

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

J Street is a Partisan Left-Wing Group, NOT an Alternative to AIPAC

Posted on December 18, 2016 by First.One.Through

J Street touts itself as an alternative to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is not. It is the liberal alternative to the Republican Jewish Coalition, the RJC.

The difference is important.

By not using a clear delineator that the group is a left-wing partisan organization by using a name like Progressive Jewish Coalition, J Street misleads the public that it is a mainstream group. It uses a benign tagline “The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans,” as opposed to the more clear tagline as used by the RJC, “Fostering & enhancing ties between the American Jewish Community & Republican Lawmakers.” By doing so, J Street has attempted to displace the actual bipartisan mainstream group AIPAC. It is completely misleading.

As evidence of its partisanship, consider that the people JStreetPAC supported in the 2016 election were all Democrats.

There is no crime in being a partisan group. Indeed, the RJC points out that it views J Street as the competition as it supports Republican candidates for office. The RJC does not pretend to be anything but biased.

Marketing materials produced by the Republican Jewish Coalition
comparing its performance in the 2016 elections to J Street

However, when the media quotes J Street, it appears that it is quoting a balanced pro-Israel group, rather than a part of the Democratic machine. Articles by the Times quote AIPAC and J Street, as if the two are balanced with one being hawkish and the latter dovish. That absurdity gives a false message to readers. The media should either only quote AIPAC, or use quotes from both J Street and the RJC.

As the Republicans take control of the White House and both the Senate and House of Representatives, one can envision that J Street will be attacking appointments, bills and positions over the next few years. The media and readers must keep in mind that the views of J Street are simply those of the opposition, and do not represent the Jewish community’s independent views on Israel.

Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

J Street’s Select Appreciation of Transparency

Liberal Hypocrisy on Foreign Government Intervention

Is Hillary Clinton as Pro-Israel as George W Bush?

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Jared Kushner’s Parents Donate $20 million to the First Hospital Likely to Win the Nobel Peace Prize

Posted on December 7, 2016 by First.One.Through

Jared Kushner, son-in-law of President-elect Donald Trump, has been in the news lately for his work helping to get his father-in-law elected president of the United States. What hasn’t been highlighted is his own parents’ charity to an incredible institution in Israel – the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem.

In 2014, Jared’s parents, Seryl and Charles Kushner, donated $18 million – on top of $2 million already given to the hospital – in honor of their 40th wedding anniversary. Known as the “hospital with a heart,” the hospital delivers more than 20,000 babies a year – more than any hospital in the world.

The new entrance to the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem
with dedication to the Seryl and Charles Kushner Campus
(photo: FirstOneThrough)

The hospital is not just famous for its pediatric and maternity wards, but for its life saving treatment to people in crises around the world. Whether in Nepal, Turkey, Haiti or the Philippines, the Israeli emergency medical crew is one of the first on the scene of a disaster, saving hundreds of people.

In November 2016, the United Nations moved to recognize Israel’s field hospital with its highest ranking. The IDF’s field hospital is headed by the Deputy General of Shaare Zedek Medical Centre, Dr Ofer Merin, and staffed by many of its doctors.

Shaare Zedek is also famous for the work of its emergency team WITHIN Israel, often saving injured civilians in Jerusalem from countless terrorist attacks.

The former head of the emergency room, Dr. David Applebaum, was often the first doctor at the scene of an attack. In September 2003, on the second anniversary of the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, Dr. Applebaum came to NY to teach first responders best practices in mass casualties emergency situations. However, he had to cut his talks short, to fly back to Israel for his daughter’s wedding. That night before the wedding, both he and his daughter were killed as they sat at a dinner by a terrorist bombing.

Left-wing radical papers may write articles condemning the charity work of the Kushners as they try to attack President-elect Trump. The reality is that the largest donations given by the Kushner family is to a hospital with both Jewish and Arab doctors working side-by-side doing amazing things for the community in Israel and around the world.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Raffle to Benefit Shaare Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem

Israel Lends a Hand, Again

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Arab women watching their child play at Shaare Zedek

Time for Obama to Address Palestinian Arabs Directly

Posted on December 4, 2016 by First.One.Through

The Palestinian Arabs conduct polls of themselves every few months. The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research publish the polls for all to see.

It would appear that the United Nations and the Obama Administration refuse to read and internalize the clear print.

Consider the poll completed in September 2016. The findings concluded:

“current level of support for an armed intifada remains high and a majority opposes the Russian invitation for a meeting between Abbas and Netanyahu in Moscow. Moreover, the public remains highly pessimistic about the French Initiative’s chances of success. Finally, Hamas’ candidate for the presidency, Ismail Haniyeh remains more popular than Abbas.”

The Palestinian Arabs continue to “support an armed intifada,” meaning killing Israelis rather than speaking and negotiating with them. The Arabs further support the terrorist group Hamas rather than the “more moderate” Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas.

But the US and the United Nations don’t acknowledge these persistent inconvenient facts.

On November 29, 2016, the US State Department had its daily press briefing were Spokesperson John Kirby stated:

” in order to get there [two state solution], you have to see tangible leadership on both sides to ratchet down the rhetoric and to reduce the violence and to show a willingness to sit down and have discussions about a two-state solution. That hasn’t been the case….
we need to see the leadership on both sides take the kinds of actions to realize a two-state solution; to commit to a willingness to sit down and have those kinds of discussions and to effect those kinds of negotiations. And his point was exactly and succinctly right: You can lead the horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. You have to – ultimately – and we’ve said this time and time again – you have to see leadership exuded and demonstrated there in the region. They have to be willing to get to this two-state solution or it’s not going to be sustainable. And I think if you go back and look at the transcript of his remarks, you’ll see that he expounded on that thought in exactly – almost exactly those words.“

The US State Department seemed to recognize the failure of Palestinian leadership – but not the Palestinian people. It chose to equivocate in condemning Israeli settlements by also blaming the impasse of advancing peace talks on Palestinian leadership. However, the State Department never is critical of the Palestinian Arabs who continue to favor violence and terrorism instead of coexistence and peace.

On that same November day, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also blamed the leadership of the two parties. “Israeli and Palestinian leaders still voice their support for the two-State solution. However, without urgent steps to revive a political perspective, they risk entrenching a one-state reality.” According to the UN, the failures of leadership have in turn caused anger from the populations:

“All this has led to growing anger and frustration among Palestinians and profound disillusionment among Israelis. It has strengthened radicals and weakened moderates on both sides.”

The inversion of cause-and-effect never enters the mindset of Ban Ki-Moon, that Acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas cannot take steps towards peace, because his own people demand more forceful actions. The UN will state that Palestinian Arab civilians are simply “resorting to violence” and are “desperate” for a state, even though the entire fabric of the PA, Fatah and Hamas is about the destruction of the Jewish State.

A New Path

US President Obama declined to address the Israeli parliament when he visited Israel in March 2013, and instead addressed Israeli citizens. In his opening remarks he said “what I’ve most looked forward to is the ability to speak directly to you, the Israeli people — especially so many young people who are here today — (applause) — to talk about the history that brought us here today, and the future that you will make in the years to come.”

Perhaps the final gesture to advancing peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, is for Obama to address the Palestinian Arabs directly to accept their Jewish neighbors and build a future together, rather than reward the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority as former US President Jimmy Carter suggested on that same November 29 day of willful blindness.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Cause and Effect: Making Gaza

It’s the Democracy, Stupid

Opinion: Remove the Causefire before a Ceasefire

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Liberals in Canada are Following Obama in Turning on Israel

Posted on November 23, 2016 by First.One.Through

It was just a year ago, in October 2015, that liberals swept to power in Canada. It was a continuation of a spate of wins in North America, which included a mayoral race in New York City in 2013, and, of course, eight years of US President Barack Obama winning in 2008 and 2012.

The rush in liberal wins produced a retreat from several conservatives values. Will the liberal Canadian Prime Minister similarly back away from Israel the way Obama did in the US?

Possibly.

The treatment of Israel by President Obama was atrocious from the very beginning. It started with his complete disregard of the April 2004 letter from President George W. Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which assured Israel that it would not return to the 1949 Armistice Lines / the “1967 border.” The treatment of Israel devolved from there, including Obama’s leading a Democratic boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of congress in 2015.

In sharp contrast to Obama, the new Canadian Prime Minister showed early support of Israel, backing the conservative party’s measure in February 2016 to ban the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) Movement against Israel in schools. Trudeau commented “The BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has no place on Canadian campuses.”

A month later, in March 2016, Trudeau said “Israel is a friend, Israel is an ally, Israel is a country that has values and an approach on many, many issues that are very much aligned with Canadians values. But, at the same time… we won’t hesitate from talking about unhelpful steps like the continued illegal settlements. We will point that out.” He continued his general support of Israel saying that “the demonization, the de-legitimization or the double standard that’s often applied to Israel [at the United Nations]is not helping reach the two-state solution of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state alongside a peaceful, democratic Israel.”

The early comments from the liberal leader seemed promising, almost in tune with his conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, a strong ally and supporter of Israel.

But Trudeau’s pivot to the darker forces – and in particular those parties that seek to actively harm Israel – would soon surface.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and US President Barack Obama
(Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

First, in January 2016, Trudeau stated that Canada sought to restart relations with Iran, a country which promised to wipe Israel from the map. By June 2016, it became public that official dialogue with the official state-sponsor of terrorism had begun.

Second, on November 16, 2016, the Canadian liberal government announced that it was resuming funding of UNRWA, the UN relief agency that supports the descendants of displaced Palestinian Arabs. The previous conservative Canadian government had cut off funding to UNRWA in 2010, after it became known that the organization was closely tied to the terrorist group Hamas. Needless to say, the United Nations was very pleased with the C$25 million donation to assist “5.3 million Palestine refugees.” (Note that there are really only an estimated 30,000 Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.)

As detailed in “UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews,” UNRWA undermines the possibility of peace between Israelis and Palestinian Arabs at its core. It fosters a festering Israeli-Arab war, while the organization robs funding from actual refugees from around the world in need of real relief.

International Development Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau says
the Liberals are refunding UNRWA
(Photo: Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

Lastly, Trudeau has followed Obama’s lead in never condemning “radical Islamic terrorism,” but only a generic form of terrorism. This was true regarding his comments about terrorism in Orlando, Nice, Paris, Brussels, and those targeting Canadian citizens in the Philippines.

The Canadian Liberals’ resumption of funding UNRWA, and its move to reestablish ties with Iran are disturbing moves against Israel and a reversal of the policies instituted by the previous conservative government. Time will tell whether Canadian liberals follow the US in The Democrats’ Slide on Israel.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Help Refugees: Shut the UNRWA, Fund the UNHCR

Delivery of the Fictional Palestinian Keys

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

Palestinian “Refugees” or “SAPs”?

Is Hillary Clinton as Pro-Israel as George W Bush?

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

Pride. Jewish and Gay

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Broken Glass Ceiling in Politics Hides the Importance of Education

Posted on November 4, 2016 by First.One.Through

As the United States prepares to elect its first female president, women in the United States will celebrate the shattering of the ultimate glass ceiling. And while the event is momentous, it undermines a critical point: the key to gender equality is not in electing women into government nor simply advancing women in the workforce.

It is in EDUCATING women, and then giving them the opportunities to advance.

Women in Democracies

The World Economic Forum (WEF) did a ranking of gender equality around the world. It considered several factors including: health, education, workforce participation and political empowerment. The Scandinavian countries rocked the rest of the world. Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden ranked numbers 1 to 4, with Denmark did not do badly at #14. The USA came in at #28, right in front of Cuba.

Why did the US fair so poorly? Almost singularly because so few women have been elected to government office, not just the presidency. A secondary reason was labor force participation and wage equality.

And which countries led the world in those two categories?

For political empowerment, Rwanda, Bolivia and Cuba, all had roughly 50% women in the governments according to the Inter-parliamentary Union. The United States ranked #97 at only 19.4%. That was lower than Saudi Arabia!

Regarding women in the workforce, Tanzania, Madagascar and Rwanda topped the list, according to the World Bank, each with over 86% of the women in the workforce. Only 56% of American women were in the workforce in 2014, trailing Mongolia and Gabon. Quite a poor showing.

But are those factors – women in government and the workforce – truly indicative of gender equality? Consider the statistics where women truly fair poorly- the Middle East.

Women in the Middle East

The position of women in the Middle East is much worse than in the western democracies. According to the WEF, the MENA region had by far the worst gender gap relative to any region. The exception was Israel, which while being in the heart of the Middle East, resembled the world’s democracies much more than its neighbors.

In the 1000-mile region around Israel, Sudan (yes, that Sudan) led the region in the percentage of governmental positions held by women. One would therefore imagine that women fair the best in Sudan, if that is a metric for scoring gender equality.

Nope. Sudan treat women horribly.

According to a 2013 Thomson Reuters Foundation survey, Sudan “allows for domestic abuse, child marriage and marital rape. Sexual violence is common and often goes unpunished.” It is estimated that over 12 million women have undergone genital mutilation in Sudan, and article 152 of the penal code justifies arresting and flogging women just for the way they dress.

Clearly not a good correlation between women in government and gender equality.

When it comes to women’s participation in the workforce, Israel led the region, just ahead of Cyprus. At the other extreme, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Jordan had almost no women working, which would suggest that the workforce is a logical barometer of gender equality.

However, consider that Tanzania had the highest percentage of women in the workforce in the world, and only obtaining a ranking by the WEF of #49 overall. The low ranking reflected the fact that almost no women in the country received proper education and their literacy rate was extremely low. So while women owned businesses and were in the workforce, they made a fraction of what men earned.

So workforce participation is also not a simple straight reflection of gender equality.

Education+

As described above, a high percentage of women in the workforce and in government does not yield a society which fully respects women and provides gender equality. Women must have a proper education – on par with men – to properly achieve equality.

Not surprisingly, countries that deny girls a proper education have a terrible record regarding women’s rights. The worst offending countries are in southeast Asia and include: India; Cambodia; Pakistan; Nepal and Afghanistan. These countries dominate the world in acid attacks against women that leave women as “walking dead” for dishonoring their families. They also are among the leaders of honor killings of women.

But a proper education in itself is not a pathway to gender equality. Consider Saudi Arabia, which receives high marks for educating women, but then does not allow women to progress in society. They are prohibited from driving or going out without a male escort. Women are discouraged from working and have zero political empowerment.

The key for gender equality is education-plus. A proper education and an ability to be a full participating part of society.

Israel’s Women

The education+ format is what helped Israel stand apart from the rest of the MENA region.Overall, the ranking for MENA were:

Israel #53
Kuwait #117
UAE #119
Qatar #122
Bahrain #123
and it went downhill from there

How did Israel’s #53 ranking fair on the world stage? Ahead of:

Singapore #54
Croatia #59
El Salvador #62
Chile #73
Czech Republic #81
Brazil #85
Greece #87

Israel achieved the relatively high ranking because of education+.

Israel ranked #1 in the world when it comes to women enrolled in primary, secondary and tertiary schools. It also ranked #1 in terms of women in technical professions (not surprisingly, because of the terrific education).

Beyond the pure figures, how does Israel treat women? Consider the report from the European Union (no friend of Israel) that concluded in a report:

“International rankings of women’s equality rank Israel well among the countries in the EuroMediterranean region. Women are increasingly represented across all levels of civil society, spanning the political, legislative and judicial systems, government corporations, the general labour market and the military. Workplace laws are progressive and women-friendly and Gender Based Violence (GBV) in terms of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, early marriage and killings in the name of “family honour” in Israel is comparatively low internationally.
Programmes to advance the rights of women have been promoted at all levels of government and civil society. With respect to women in the workplace, the state established the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) to monitor labour law compliance. It has allocated increased funding to subsidize child care centres to allow more women with small children to re-enter the workforce, hosted awareness and educational programs about proper workplace practices, launched a website with information about women’s issues, offered training and professional guidance courses to women, and held seminars for teachers on how to encourage girls to excel in mathematics and exact sciences.”

An excellent example of the fruits that come from education+

With the election of Hillary Clinton, the United States will jump in the WEF ranking considerably. While the bump in ranking is nice, the US should be proud of the long history of promoting top quality education for women.

Even more, people should not lose sight that the key to gender parity does not lie with electing a woman as president, but by ensuring that women have a great education and the opportunities to pursue any vocation of their choosing.

It is a shame that the United Nations missed delivering the world that important message as it named the female comic book hero Wonder Woman as its Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls. Although it is nice that Wonder Woman is played by a proud Israeli!

Related First.One.Through articles:

Israel, the Liberal Country of the Middle East

In Israel, the winner is…Democracy

The Sad Assault on Women in the Middle and Far East

The Color Coded Lexicon of Israel’s Bigotry: It’s not Just PinkWashing

A Flower in Terra Barbarus

Israel’s Peers and Neighbors

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Germans have “Schadenfreude” Jews have “Alemtzev”

Posted on August 11, 2016 by First.One.Through

Schadenfreude. It’s a fascinating word. It means “a feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people.” If that sounds quite mean, consider an example.

Imagine a person treats you poorly, perhaps cutting your car off on the road. Should that person subsequently run over a nail and get a flat, perhaps you would experience some joy as you drive past them, witnessing their misfortune. That’s schadenfreude.

The word derives from the German “Schaden” (harm) and “Freude” (joy). Many people think that it is no surprise that the Germans would coin such an expression.

Jews on the other hand, have a related – but inverted – feeling that they experience: a sense of sorrow when they witness sympathy or kindness for others, when they receive none of those sentiments in the same situation. That’s alemtzev.

Consider the murder of a priest in a church in France on July 26, 2016. The United Nations released a powerful statement condemning the murder:

“The High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser strongly condemns the barbarous murder of Rev. Jacques Hamel during a Mass today at the Eglise Saint-Etienne in the city of Rouen in France.

The brutal crime which also involved taking hostages is shocking by all means taking place within a church, a sacred place of worship where people of faith seek peace and comfort and share the values of compassion and tolerance. These are the core values that all faiths embrace.

These barbaric and criminal acts perpetrated by terrorists aim to spread fear and rejection, subsequently leading to fueling hatred and further igniting the cycle of violence and hate crimes. The High Representative extends his deepest sympathies to the family and loved one of Rev. Jacques Hamel and to the people and Government of France.”

A normal, strong and appropriate statement issued by the world body when a single elderly priest had his throat slit in a church.

Reverend Jacques Hamel killed by Islamic terrorists

But how did the UN react when FOUR rabbis were hacked to death with an axe in a synagogue in Israel in November 2014? Read the statement:

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns today’s attack on a synagogue in West Jerusalem which claimed four lives and injured several persons. He extends his condolences to the families of the victims and wishes the injured a speedy recovery.

Beyond today’s reprehensible incident, clashes between Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces continue on a near daily basis in many parts of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The Secretary-General condemns all acts of violence against civilians. Attacks against religious sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank point to an additional dangerous dimension to the conflict which reverberates far beyond the region.

The Secretary-General calls for political leadership and courage on both sides to take actions to address the very tense situation in Jerusalem. All sides must avoid using provocative rhetoric which only encourages extremist elements. In this regard, the Secretary-General welcomes President Abbas’ condemnation of today’s attack.

The steadily worsening situation on the ground only reinforces the imperative for leaders on both sides to make the difficult decisions that will promote stability and ensure long-term security for both Israelis and Palestinians.”

The UN couldn’t spare more than two sentences on the murders of rabbis before turning to blame Israel for the underlying situation. What’s more consider:

The murder happened in Jerusalem, not “West Jerusalem”
It was called an “attack,” not a “barbarous murder” or “brutal crime” as labeled in France
It occurred in a “synagogue,” but not “a sacred place of worship” with “values of compassion and tolerance”
The four rabbis were not mentioned by name, nor was the name of the synagogue as it was for the priest in France. Were these people or just part of the faceless “occupying power” according to the UN?
The murderers were not called “terrorists” as they were in France. Somehow, the entire brutal attack on innocent civilians was turned by the UN into a battle between “Palestinian youths and Israeli security forces”

Jews around the world were appalled by the killing of the priest. Hearing the story reminded them of daily terror Israelis face by fanatical Palestinian Arabs. Listening to how the priest had to kneel before his throat was slit, recalled the incident of the Wall Street Journalist reporter Daniel Pearl who was told to describe his Jewish faith before Islamic terrorists beheaded him in 2002.

The tragedies leave lasting wounds and ongoing sadness beyond the heinous act. Jews not only see a world where the innocents are slaughtered; they repeatedly receive a fraction of the compassion and care that their companions in the foxhole receive.

Alemtzev is a concoction of two Hebrew words: “heet’alem” which means “ignored/ passed over”, and “e’tzev” which means “sadness.” Such is the situation for world Jewry today. A profound sadness for the suffering of innocents. A profound loneliness that the world barely cares.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

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

Ban Ki Moon Stands with Gaza

The Only Religious Extremists for the United Nations are “Jewish Extremists”

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

The Hollowness of the United Nations’ “All”

UN Media Centre Ignores Murdered Israelis

My Terrorism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Bernie Sanders Supports America’s Targeted Killings While Banning Israel’s

Posted on May 24, 2016 by First.One.Through

On May 22, 2016, the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, was killed in a U.S. strike. The assassination was announced by President Barack Obama:

“We have removed the leader of an organisation that has continued to plot against and unleash attacks on American and Coalition forces, to wage war with the Afghan people, and align itself with extremist groups like al-Qaeda.”

The logic for the assassination seemed logical, and consistent with past statements by Obama to target individuals who posed a threat to the security of Americans.

Democratic Presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders had a slightly different take on American drone strikes. He preferred a more limited use of the drones, as he said “I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case.”

However, Sanders had a completely different attitude when it came to Israel defending itself. Israel, he said, had NO right to use targeted killings:

“the Israelis must end their policy of targeted killings.“

Bernie Sanders claimed to condemn “the terrorist actions of Hamas, including their practice of firing rockets into houses and urban centers.” Then why does Sanders feel that Israel should be precluded from using a tool to protect civilian lives that the US uses?

It is fair to assume that Sanders’ foreign policy will resemble the United Nations’ hypocrisy regarding Israel.