The Obama Administration Continues to Abandon Israel in Fighting Terror

Posted on January 8, 2017 by First.One.Through

Once again, the Obama administration has refused to stand with Israel as it confronts terror.

On January 8, 2017, a terrorist rammed a group of soldiers who had just exited a bus in Jerusalem. At least four were killed. The US State Department made the following statement in response:

“We condemn in the strongest possible terms today’s horrific vehicular attack by a terrorist in Jerusalem.‎ There is absolutely no justification for these brutal and senseless attacks. We‎ condemn the glorification of terrorism now or at any time and call on all to send a clear message that terrorism must never be tolerated.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the four Israeli soldiers who were killed, and we hope for a full and fast recovery of those injured.”

Stating their is “no justification” for violence but NOT stating that America stands by Israel and the people of Israel in combatting terror IS JUSTIFYING TERROR. The Obama administration just let a UN resolution claiming that the 1949 Armistice Lines are actual borders is a reward for terror. Propping up the acting President of the Palestinian Authority whose term expired eight years is rewarding terror.

Israeli security forces after car ramming attack in Jerusalem
(photo: AP:AHMAD GHARABLI)

Consider the State Department’s response to the car ramming attack in Nice, France:

“Today’s horrendous attack in Nice is an attack against innocent people on a day that celebrates Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.

On behalf of all Americans, and especially the great many with close ties to France, I offer our deepest condolences to the friends and family of those who were killed and our hopes for a speedy recovery to those who were injured.

I was proud to stand alongside French leaders earlier today at Bastille Day celebrations in Paris, and the United States will continue to stand firmly with the French people during this time of tragedy. We will provide whatever support is needed.

Our embassy in Paris is making every effort to account for the welfare of U.S. citizens in Nice. Any U.S. citizens in Nice should contact friends and family directly to inform them of their well being.”

This US administration has done this to Israel time and again.

Consider the attacks in the fall of 2015, as detailed in “Select Support in Fighting Terrorism from the US State Department.” The US stood by the governments of Chad, Lebanon and France in terrorist attacks. But not Israel.

In reviewing the global terrorism in the summer of 2015, as detailed in “The US State Department Does Not Want Israel to Fight Terrorism,” the US supported the governments of Turkey, Afghanistan and Cameroon in combatting terrorism. But not Israel.

The terrorism of January 8 , 2017 fell out on the Jewish fast day of the 10th of Tevet. It is a holiday where the Babylonian leader Nebuchadnezzar began to lay siege to Jerusalem. The city would not fall for another 30 months, but Jews have commemorated the beginning of the siege for 2500 years. History has shown that calamities often do not come out of the blue, but start with incremental steps. Each one is a tragedy.

Just a few weeks ago, the Obama administration let a UN resolution pass which stated that it was illegal for Jews to live in the entirety of the Old City of Jerusalem. Obama once again continued to make clear that it will not stand with Israel while Jews are murdered in the city.

A question for Jews to ponder is whether the commemoration of the US abandoning Israel should be marked on December 23 when the UN Resolution 2334 passed, or January 20, 2008, when Obama was elected to office.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

John Kerry: The Declaration and Observations of a Failure

US Hypocrisy – “Reasonableness and Restraint”

Ban Ki Moon Stands with Gaza

Ban Ki Moon Understands Why People Kill Israelis

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Selfishness, Morality and Effectiveness of Defending Others

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

There is a well known quote from a Protestant minister named Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) who argued for the defense of others:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The argument is by all accounts a practical one, not a moral one. The quote suggests that people should stand up against prejudice because hatred is a slippery slope. The selfish reasoning has different aspects: fight for others before the evil comes for you; and fight for others, and hopefully they will fight for you as well due to the same logic.

Do world leaders actually use such self-motivating arguments in practice? Are the arguments effective in curbing hate and attacks driven by hatred?

Rallying for the Victims

Consider the situation of Jews in France over the past few years.

The Anti Defamation League did a study of anti-Semitism in 2014 which it updated in 2015. The study found that while most countries in the world witnessed very small changes in the level of hatred against Jews, France saw a dramatic drop.

Christians: In 2014, 40% of French Christians held anti-Semitic views. That number dropped to 17% in 2015.
Business: In 2014, 51% of France believed that Jews had too much control of the financial markets. One year later, only 33% held such views – mostly Muslims (63%)
Global Affairs: In 2014, 46% of France believed that Jews had too much control over world affairs, a number that dropped to 22% in 2015 (again, predominantly French Muslims, 54% compared to Christians at 21%)
Pompous: In 2014, 33% of France thought that Jews thought themselves superior to others, dropping almost in half to 17% in 2015 (Muslims were more than twice as likely as Christians to hold this view)
Media: In 2014, 44% of France thought that Jews had too much control of the media, which dropped to only 21% in 2015 (Muslims were almost 3 times more likely to hold that view).
World Wars: In 2014, 18% of the French considered the Jews behind major world wars. In 2015, that number was one-third, 6% (with Muslims FOUR times as likely as Christians to hold such view).

What happened between the two polls in France to cause such a dramatic shift in the perception of Jews? ADL commented that various terrorist attacks and violence against Jews over 2014 brought a sense of solidarity for the Jews in France, as well as in Germany and Belgium where other attacks occurred:

“The poll found a marked increase in concern about violence against Jews in all three countries. The results indicate that heightened awareness of violence against Jews fosters a sense of solidarity with the Jewish community and that strong condemnation by political and civic leaders makes expressing anti-Semitism less acceptable.”

Such statement from the ADL would seem to confirm that speaking up in defense of a persecuted group improves their situation, and indeed that may have been a contributor to the dramatic improvement of the French perception of Jews.

Rallying for the Perpetrator

In June 2015, the Pew Research Center did a survey of the French in their attitudes towards Muslims in the aftermath of deadly attacks committed by Islamic terrorists. In a surprising finding, the French viewed the group that perpetrated the violence MORE favorably than before, going from a 72% favorability rating to 76%. The improvement in opinions went across all political ideologies, including the far right which saw a movement of 60% to 63%, including a strong favorability rating doubling from 8% to 16%.

This dynamic happened in the United States after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks as well. Overall, Americans’ positive impressions of Muslims jumped from 45% to 59%, with the far right jumping the most, from 35% favorable feelings to 64%.

Pew reached a similar conclusion as the ADL, and attributed the increased positive feelings towards Muslims stemming from the call for unity among leaders such as President George W Bush who said: “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.”

The famous Niemoller quote considered people’s selfish motivations to defend others, while world leaders appealed to people to turn away from hatred in pursuit of unity. Whether in France or the USA, those calls seemed effective in changing attitudes, but did they lower the number of attacks?

Effectiveness

In the United States, the number of attacks inspired by radical Islam has accelerated since the middle of 2015, with roughly 30 incidents over the past year (compared to 62 in the prior 14 years). Have the number of attacks increased because of the calls by President-elect Donald Trump to perform “extreme vetting” of Muslims interested in coming to the United States from countries at war with the US? Possibly. It is certainly an extreme jump in jihadist attacks.

However France has also seen a dramatic increase in the number of Islamic attacks, which began to spike in December 2014. There have been roughly 20 attacks over the past two years, which roughly equals the prior 25-years’ of attacks. Various pundits speculate a number of causes including the French colonialist past and the marginalization of Muslim immigrants in French society. But those excuses must be dismissed, as those dynamics have been at play for dozens of years.

Others point out to the rise in the number of Muslim immigrants from the war-torn Middle East. These immigrants arrived into France, Belgium and other countries, bringing their anger with them. The stories they tell of the destruction of their homes fuels the anger of the resident Muslims that were already in the country. Rather than be grateful for their safety, they attack the liberal society which replaced their Muslim world. While the attacks by Muslims has led to the growth of far-right nationalist parties that argue to stem the flow of Muslim refugees, the far-right has overall been more positive towards the Islamic community.

It would appear that calls for calm and unity by government leaders is effective in reducing hatred, but does little to curtail terrorism. To reduce terrorism, the most effective course may be to end the wars in the Middle East, including Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Peace at home is achieved with peace abroad.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

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

The Presidential Candidates on Islamic Terrorism: The Bumblebee, the Crocodile and the Pitbull

The Big, Bad Lone Wolves of Terrorism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

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

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

Posted on November 2, 2016 by First.One.Through

Pro-Israel Democrats have loudly proclaimed that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, is a strong supporter of Israel. They have even stated that her pro-Israel positions are really not that dissimilar to the Republican President George W. Bush.

Really?

“Settlements” and Berating Israel

A new batch of emails from Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State reveals some of her positions related to Israel and her approach to dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Consider the email exchange between Hillary Clinton and Sandy Berger on September 19 & 22, 2009.

“ironically, his [Netanyahu’s] intransigence over 67 borders may offer us [the Clinton’s State Department] that possibility – to turn his position against him… Sending [Middle East Peace Envoy George] Mitchell back to try to get the parties to agree on a common basis to relaunch negotiations. This includes: an end to the occupation that began in 1967. –– This 67 formulation was used in the Road Map, by Bush, Sharon and Olmert. Assuming Bibi will accept no formulation that includes 67 borders, it suggests that Bibi is the obstacle to progress and backtracking on his part on an issue that previous Israeli governments have accepted.”

The Clinton/Berger plot was clearly to undermine Netanyahu to punish him for disagreeing to set the borders that existed in 1967 as the permanent borders. They viewed those borders as concessions that had been previously agreed to.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, 2009

But look at what President George W. Bush and the US Congress actually stated five years earlier on June 23, 2004.

“Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities;”

This House of Representatives motion, H. Con.Res 460, was passed in a landslide roll call vote 407-9.

Note that Bush clearly stated the opposite of what Clinton and Berger contended: prior agreements and assurances that the borders would NOT be along the Green Line which existed until 1967.

Further, the April letter from Bush to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon underscored that the pathway to peace and a two-state future was the cessation of all Palestinian incitement to, and acts of violence.

“The United States appreciates the risks such an undertaking [Israeli withdrawal from Gaza] represents. I [President George W Bush] therefore want to reassure you on several points.

First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan. Under the roadmap, Palestinians must undertake an immediate cessation of armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere, and all official Palestinian institutions must end incitement against Israel. The Palestinian leadership must act decisively against terror, including sustained, targeted, and effective operations to stop terrorism and dismantle terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. Palestinians must undertake a comprehensive and fundamental political reform that includes a strong parliamentary democracy and an empowered prime minister.

Second, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until they and all states, in the region and beyond, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations. The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.

Third, Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel. “

Bush focused on the cessation of Palestinian Arab terrorism and incitement, as he underscored that Israel would NOT return to the 1967 borders.

What happened between the 2004 Bush/Sharon letter and the 2009 Clinton/Berger email?

In 2005, Israel withdrew every Israeli civilian and soldier from Gaza
In 2006, Hamas, the anti-Semitic terrorist group sworn to Israel’s destruction swept legislative elections, gaining 58% of the seats in the Palestinian Authority
In 2007, Hamas routed the competing political party Fatah, and seized total control of Gaza
In 2008/9, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead to stop the incessant missile fire into Israel from Gaza
And in September 2009, as Clinton and Berger exchanged emails, the United Nations was preparing to release the Goldstone Report, a 452-page report where the world body would demonize Israel for committing war crimes in Operation Cast Lead

It was in that environment, where Israel was feeling the condemnation of the world, that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to add fuel to the fire by berating Benjamin Netanyahu as an “obstacle to progress.” Not a single criticism of Palestinian Arab terror, which WAS the focus of the assurances between the US and Israel.

At best, pro-Israel Clinton supporters may claim that she was simply following the direction of President Barack Obama to rewrite facts and history in the hope that no one would notice.

Democrats can claim that there was no malice in rewriting the long-standing Democratic platform in 2012, removing the historic clause that had been the party’s approach for years, “All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” The entire language that was lifted verbatim from the 2004 Bush/Sharon letter was deleted in its entirety. It was as if it never existed.

Democrats comfortably pretend that Israel moved to the right, rather than the party’s positions that moved counter to facts and history, because they BELIEVE their cause to be just. They believe that the settlements are the primary obstacle to peace because they get terrible advice from left-wing groups like J Street that claim to be pro-Israel and pro-peace. (J Street just released a foolish video making fun of Donald Trump’s ties to the settlements, in time for the elections.)

The reality, is that the Democratic party under Obama’s leadership moved sharply away from Israel and the truth. And Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State followed that caustic approach to attack Israel while it was vulnerable on the world stage.

Related First.One.Through articles:

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

An Open Letter to Non-Anti-Semitic Sanders Supporters

The United States Joins the Silent Chorus

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

On Accepting Invitations, Part 2

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The Presidential Candidates on Islamic Terrorism: The Bumblebee, the Crocodile and the Pitbull

Posted on October 31, 2016 by First.One.Through

The race for the president of the United States in 2016 has regrettably not been about issues, but character. Both Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump have been tarred-and-feathered by their opponents mostly because of actions or statements that they have made, rather than on positions and policies they plan to introduce should they be elected.

Still, in the statements that the individuals have made, there is a sense of how each views the world around them, and in particular, the attitudes towards radical Islamic terror.

Consider these analogies:

The Bumblebee

At first glance, bumblebees look scary. A person seeing the bee’s colors or hearing the buzz of its wings, may either look to run or to kill the insects. However, many knowledgeable people will tell you that the bumblebees will not bother you if you leave them alone.

That attitude is found in the radical left, like Jill Stein of the Green Party, and to some extent, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Stein believes that all people are inherently good, so people will only attack if provoked. Johnson is less of a purest on intent, but more of an isolationist, so wants America to retrench from around the world to just focus on home. According to these candidates, radical Islamic terrorism will spare America, if America does not act aggressively in the Middle East.

The Crocodile

A crocodile is often described as the meanest creature on the planet. At the very moment a crocodile is hatched, it will bite the first thing that it sees.

Trump believes that Islam has potentially very dangerous ideas that are incompatible with democracy and American values. As such, he has stated that he would curtail immigration from all Islamic countries that are engaged in wars or spawn terrorism. Trump believes that the jump from moderate Islam to radical Islam is too small and difficult to track, and since radical Islam is a real and persistent threat, draconian actions are required to protect American interests.

The Pitbull

Pitbulls have a mixed reputation. Many dog owners see the dogs as beautiful, elegant and strong. Others see the breed as a menace that can turn quickly and kill or maim people.

Clinton views Muslims in a similar light. She believes that Islam is not inherently bad or inclined towards violence. However, she does not deny that a strain of radical Islam is present in the world and killing men, women and children. As such, her views suggest a combination of empowering the American Muslim community and monitoring their activities.

The radical left argues that the world is full of bees. These dreamers believe that foreigners who look threatening really aren’t, they’re simply misunderstood. Some of these liberals have gone into the hives in an effort to befriend these misunderstood communities, sometimes as volunteers to rally for the “peaceful” cause. Some were killed – like Vittori Arrigoni – while they basked in their naivete.

For their part, the radical right will have you believe that entire classes of people are inherently evil. Such “devils” would ideally be avoided, but should they pose a threat to America or its allies, the right would advocate for the evil to be exterminated. Should those suspicious people seek entry into the United States, the right-wing would argue for “extreme vetting” before permitting their immigration.

Those in the middle think in a more nuanced fashion. They understand that there are good and bad people everywhere. The center argues that there is no reason to curtail immigration for Muslims, any more than placing a nationwide ban on pitbulls.

The reality is that the various approaches are right and wrong, depending on the issues. The world has bumblebees AND crocodiles AND pitbulls. There is no single approach to dealing with a large, complicated world.

The left’s desire to say that all people are alright and that everyone is created equal fails to see the world for what it really is. The right’s desire to see piranhas and crocodiles in every body of water will foster fear and force unnecessary retrenching of resources. And the people who embrace caution but equivocate, are only balancing the extremes.

Today, America lacks honest and clear leadership, that is both kind and courteous, while also being politically incorrect, as appropriate.

Society would be better served in not seeing everything as black-or-white, but not being deceived that everything is grey. As important, our leaders should have clarity of what is white, grey and black. How can people trust leaders to develop solutions, when those leaders are blind to reality?

For example, the radical left-wing of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have more contempt for bankers than they have for ISIS. Hard-working honest bankers are labeled crocodiles, while ISIS is labeled a pitbull. Such politicians cannot be trusted to lead.

The radical right-wing looks at immigrants from Latin America seeking economic opportunity in the USA, the same way that it looks at people returning from fighting for ISIS. What is the basis for lumping these people together?

Today, America’s leaders have fed their constituents fat lies. The left-wing dreamers would prefer to takedown capitalism over terrorism. The right-wing would take out all Muslims rather than just the extremists. If politicians cannot properly identify our obvious enemies, how can we elect them as leaders?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota

Crises at the Borders

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

“Jews as a Class”

A Logical Approach to Immigration from Personal History

The Dangerous Red Herring Linking Poverty and Terrorism

Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

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

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

Nazi Germany

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

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

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

ISIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian Arabs

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

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

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

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

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

Ladies and Gentlemen,

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

This is child abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related First.One.Through articles:

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

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

Palestinians of Today and the Holocaust

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Hillary Clinton Wants Muslim Americans to Squeal on Each Other

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

On September 18, 2016, a Somali-American Muslim man went on a rampage and stabbed nine people in Minnesota, before being shot by an off-duty police officer. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, and both presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, weighed in on the attack.

Clinton’s remarks deliberately misled Americans that she had a tough plan using law enforcement to deal with terrorism.

Her statement read:

“ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack in Minnesota, and this should steel our resolve to protect our country and defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups. I have laid out a comprehensive plan to do that. This includes launching an intelligence surge to help identify and thwart attacks before they can be carried out, and to spot lone wolf attackers.”

A casual reader would imagine that Hillary is planning on relying on a range of security personnel in an “intelligence surge” to protect Americans from local radical jihadists.

They would be wrong.

Hillary Clinton addressing reporters September 16, 2016

On December 15, 2015, Hillary Clinton was in Minnesota where she discussed her detailed plan to thwart ISIS in America. Her three-part plan included an effort to prevent attacks before they could be carried out, which was based on Muslim Americans reporting on fellow Muslims who were becoming radicalized.

“Here in the Twin Cities, you have an innovative partnership that brings together parents, teachers, imams, and others in the Somali-American community with law enforcement, non-profits, local businesses, mental health professionals and others to intervene with young people who are at risk.

It’s called the Building Community Resilience Pilot Program, and it deserves increased support. It has not gotten the financial resources that it needs to do everything the people involved in it know they can do. And we’ve got to do a better job of supporting it.

Now I know that like many places across the country, there’s more work to do to increase trust between communities and law enforcement. Just last month, I know here a young African American man was fatally shot by a police officer. And I understand an investigation is underway. Whatever the outcome, tragedies like this raise hard questions about racial justice in America and put at risk efforts to build the community relationships that help keep us safe from crime and from terrorism.

When people see that respect and trust are two-way streets, they’re more likely to work hand-in-hand with law enforcement. One of the mothers of the 10 men recently charged with conspiring with terrorists said, “We have to stop the denial,” she told other parents that. “We have to talk to our kids and work with the FBI.” That’s a message we need to hear from leaders within Muslim-American communities across our country.”

Hillary Clinton’s plan relies on Muslim Americans reporting on fellow Muslim Americans to the police.

As discussed in “Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota,” Donald Trump does not believe that law enforcement can rely on the Muslim American community to squeal on its bad actors. He relies on reports that state the “Islamist terror threat in the U.S. homeland has escalated dramatically,” and summations from fellow Republicans like “Republican Rep. John Kline, a member of the House Armed Services Committee and long a hawkish critic of the Obama administration, said the report proves “homegrown terrorism remains a serious issue in Minnesota.””

Donald Trump’s statement about the Minnesota attack in September 2016 was shorter on details, but more aggressive in stance. Trump did not suggest waiting passively for Muslims to mention possible attacks, he put the onus directly on law enforcement including “extreme vetting for immigrants from troubled parts of the world where terrorists live and train.” He went further to attack Clinton’s approach: “We will not allow political correctness and soft-on-terror, soft-on-crime policies to threaten our security and our lives.”

Therein lies the fundamental difference of the presidential candidates in fighting Islamic terror in the US. Both want to stop terror, but Trump will rely completely on law enforcement, whereas Clinton will seek to empower the Muslim community in the hopes that fewer people will become radicalized and more Muslims will be inclined to report on fellow Muslims.

Many Americans will only be comfortable with one of these approaches.

In September 2016, as the presidential race tightened and a series of attacks occurred in Minnesota, New York and New Jersey, Hillary Clinton concluded that she needed to appear more bold on fighting terror, and less reliant on the Muslim community’s cooperation.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The Big, Bad Lone Wolves of Terrorism

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

“Jews as a Class”

Political Pinatas: Populist Greed Meets Populist Anger

Half Standards: Gun Control and the Iranian Nuclear Weapons Deal

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: 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

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

Posted on August 1, 2016 by First.One.Through

In an effort to stop global terrorism, the United Nations assembled a team that composed an official Counterterrorism Strategy. The eight point plan was meant to serve as a set of guiding principles for governments to follow in the hopes of curbing terrorism.

Unfortunately, the UN ignores those exact principles when it comes to dealing with Palestinian Arab terrorists.

Here is a review of the UN’s Counterterrorism Strategy, and its approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

“[C]ontinue to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities of the United Nations in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation.” Does the UN use the capacities of its institution in negotiations and mediation? No. It endorses a French plan that excludes both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs from the discussions. It does nothing to encourage the Palestinian Arabs to commence negotiations.
“[M]utual respect for and prevent the defamation of religions, religious values, beliefs and cultures.” The UN fails in this initiative as well. The United Nations’ UNESCO arm drafted resolutions that deny that the Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and its centrality to Judaism and the Jewish people. It argues that Jews should be banned from praying at their holiest place. It’s entire treatment of Jewish holy places in the holy land is terrible. Further, as detailed in “The Only Religious Extremists for the United Nations are “Jewish Extremists,” the UN uniquely calls Jews extremists, while it never refers to Islamic terrorism.
“To promote a culture of peace, justice and human development, ethnic, national and religious tolerance, and respect for all religions, religious values, beliefs or cultures by establishing and encouraging, as appropriate, education and public awareness programmes involving all sectors of society. In this regard, we encourage the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to play a key role, including through inter-faith and intra-faith dialogue and dialogue among civilizations.” UNESCO denies Jewish history in Jerusalem and the Temple Mount. It undermines the education of the world of the 3700 year history of Jews in the holy land, including throughout the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria, as it worries that it offends Arabs. Another UN agency, UNRWA, does not teach the Holocaust to Palestinian Arab children for the same reason.
“[P]rohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts and prevent such conduct.” The UN calls for the terrorist group Hamas to be integrated into a Palestinian Authority unity government. The UN doesn’t seek to prohibit terrorism as much as reward it. The UN Secretary General loudly declares that he “stands with Gaza.,” which is run by Hamas that launched three wars against Israel. Does Ki-Moon ever say that he stands with Israel? Never.
“[C]ommitment to eradicate poverty and promote sustained economic growth, sustainable development and global prosperity for all.” The UN worked to remove the Israeli company Sodastream from the West Bank/ Judea and Samaria, costing hundreds of Arabs their jobs. In March 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Watch created a “blacklist” of Israeli companies operating east of the Green Line. Does the UN want a sustainable economic model for Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, or would it prefer to keep the Palestinians on perpetual life-support from the UN? In any event, the entire notion that there is a link between poverty and terrorism has repeatedly been proven false.
“To pursue and reinforce development and social inclusion agendas at every level as goals in themselves, recognizing that success in this area, especially on youth unemployment, could reduce marginalization and the subsequent sense of victimization that propels extremism and the recruitment of terrorists.” There is nothing that creates the sense of “victimization” of youth more than UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. As detailed in “UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews,” the organization is perpetuating a war from 1948 which the Arabs initiated and lost. UNRWA is making children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of original refugees grow up in camps without citizenship to specifically foster the sense of victimhood. The UN never address or rebukes the multi-decade laws of Lebanon and Syria that prevent the stateless Arabs from receiving citizenship.
“To encourage the United Nations system as a whole to scale up the cooperation and assistance it is already conducting in the fields of rule of law, human rights and good governance, to support sustained economic and social development.” Is the UN happy with Palestinian laws which call for death sentence for people who sell land to Jews? How about giving a pass to honor killings? Rampant theft by government officials? How has the UN helped the Palestinians these many years?
“To consider putting in place, on a voluntary basis, national systems of assistance that would promote the needs of victims of terrorism and their families and facilitate the normalization of their lives.” Maybe the UN can acknowledge the Israeli victims of terror for a change. Maybe it can stop excusing Palestinian Arab terrorists with statements that they “resort” to violence.

The United Nations stands by while Acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas incites terror. The UN ignores payments that the PA makes to terrorist families. It seems to bless the naming of schools, squares and tournaments after terrorists. The UN Secretary General never seems to have read the Hamas Charter or the Fatah Constitution, and then acts shocked when Hamas commits murder.

Instead, Ban Ki Moon asked Israel to put its trust in the Palestinian Authority as he stated “Israelis should be comforted by the emergence of a reliable partner and neighbour committed to Israel’s right to live in peace and security, opposed to violence and terrorism, and able to deliver on the ground.” Within days, an Israeli family was killed while they slept by two Palestinian Arab terrorists.

The United Nations under Secretary General Ban Ki Moon ha stood watch while terrorism spread from the Middle East to around the globe. The UN has acted as guardians of Palestinian Arab wards these many decades, and did not institute any of these reforms for itself or into the nascent Palestinian Authority.

How can the world put any faith in the UN in developing a plan to combat terrorism, when it has fostered and perpetuated terrorism in the Middle East?

As the UN doesn’t follow any of its own enumerated Counterterrorism strategies in dealing with Palestinian Arabs, maybe the plan might actually work.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Ban Ki Moon Has No Solidarity with Israel

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

The UN is Watering the Seeds of Anti-Jewish Hate Speech for Future Massacres

The UN’s Disinterest in Jewish Rights at Jewish Holy Places

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy on Israel is like the United Nations

Posted on July 17, 2016 by First.One.Through

As Barack Obama ends his presidency and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seeks to become the next president, it is worth noting the similarity between Obama/Clinton and the United Nations in their stances towards Israel.

Neither Obama nor the United Nations will refer to terrorism as coming from radical Islam
Both Obama and the UN think a root cause of terrorism is from poverty, even though research shows no correlation
Both Obama and the UN have aligned themselves with some of the worst state sponsors of terrorism including Iran and Saudi Arabia
Both Obama and the UN are highly critical of Israel
Both Obama and the UN state that Palestinian Arabs “resort” to violence because they are “frustrated,” even though the two main political Palestinian parties, Fatah and Hamas, both have charters calling for the destruction of Israel
Neither Obama nor the UN will state that they stand in solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism
Both Obama and the UN want Israel to stop the blockade of Gaza meant to curtail weapons shipments into Hamas, even though the blockade was deemed legal by a UN report
Both Obama and the UN endorse the anti-Semitic Palestinian platform of a new country devoid of any Jews
Both the UN and Obama want to see the terrorist group Hamas be part of a Palestinian unity government
Both Obama and the UN refer to acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas as a “moderate” and seeking peace, even though he is much more extreme than the “right-wing” current Israeli government
Both the UN and Obama prejudge the outcome of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs arguing for a two-state solution, even though the Oslo II Accords never call for such conclusion
Both the UN and Obama prejudge the outcome of negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs arguing that Jerusalem should be divided, even though the Oslo II Accords never call for such conclusion

US President Barack Obama and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon

The United Nations under UNSG Ban Ki Moon continued its long and terrible history of being very anti-Israel. Unfortunately, this US administration, headed by Obama, aligned itself with those same disgraceful positions.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

The Undemocratic Nature of Fire and Water in the Middle East

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

A “Viable” Palestinian State

Subscribe YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis