The Monumental Gap between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump

There were two events that occurred in June 2015 that have defined race relations in the South. One of them has been seized by the media as the root cause of the explosion of racism embodied by the fights in Charlottesville, VA in August 2017. Yet the other is arguably the more clearly identified source of the tension.

June 2015

On June 16, 2015, real estate titan and media personality Donald Trump announced that he would run for president of the United States. The political novice declared that it was time to turn the country around and bring back jobs – good jobs – to America, to “make our country great again.” The Trump tagline was coined “Make America great again,” and he would go one to become the 45th president of the United States.

On June 17, a white supremacist named Dylann Roof walked into a church in Charleston, South Carolina and shot and killed nine black worshipers. Roof’s “manifesto” was found in his house which detailed the many reasons he hated blacks and Jews.

Roof’s view of patriotism had nothing to do with Trump’s pride in America, but a pride in being white.

“I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets…. How about we protect the White race and stop fighting for the jews as well.”

One week in June began a process of bringing a political lightweight to the presidency to “make America great again,” while a racist sought to “make America White again.” Each set in motion a series of actions and reactions in America which were deeply felt in August 2017.

Nikki Haley Talks Down Hatred
and Takes Down the Confederate Flag

The Governor of South Carolina was quick to respond to the shooting of the black church-goers. Gov. Nikki Haley spoke to her state and the country on June 22nd in a remarkable speech. She spoke of her pride in her state and gave consolation to the wounded and injured. She was clear in her rejection of hatred and bigotry, while also noting that many people who are proud of their southern heritage have no malice toward minorities. In short, she brought comfort to all sides and stabilized the situation.

And then she addressed the flag. The Confederate flag that flew by the state capital.

“For many people in our state, the flag stands for traditions that are noble. Traditions of history, of heritage, and of ancestry.

The hate filled murderer who massacred our brothers and sisters in Charleston has a sick and twisted view of the flag. In no way does he reflect the people in our state who respect and, in many ways, revere it. Those South Carolinians view the flag as a symbol of respect, integrity, and duty. They also see it as a memorial, a way to honor ancestors who came to the service of their state during time of conflict. That is not hate, nor is it racism…

The evil we saw last Wednesday comes from a place much deeper, much darker. But we are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer. The fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something we cannot stand. The fact that it causes pain to so many is enough to move it from the Capitol grounds. It is, after all, a Capitol that belongs to all of us.”

Nikki Haley called for taking down the Confederate flag over the government grounds. She did it while noting that most people in the state respect the flag, but there are some that use it as a vehicle to violence. She said that she respects people that chose to keep that flag in their homes; it is a matter of free speech and expression. However, she concluded that in light of the history of pain and suffering in the name of the flag, the Confederate flag no longer should be endorsed by the government.


Gov. Haley after shooting at black church
June 2015

A Republican female minority governor decided it was time for the southern states to remove the emblems of the Civil War fought 150 years earlier. Standing beside two Republican senators from South Carolina she declaredThis flag, while an integral part of our past, does not represent the future of our great state.” Mainstream media would barely recognize the fact that it was Republicans – and a female minority Republican – that would shake the south.

Haley’s actions set in motion a rethinking of the various symbols of the Confederacy. In May 2017 several statutes were removed from public spaces in New Orleans. Other southern states were in the process of reviewing the status of their Confederate statues – which is what brought the White supremacists to Charlottesville, VA in August 2017: a protest to stop the removal of the statue of General Robert E. Lee.

Donald Trump Talks Up Division
and the Press Focuses on Trump Instead of Hate

Donald Trump’s road to the presidency from June 2015 was remarkable in many respects. He not only beat out a field of respected Republican politicians to win the nomination, but he did so while alienating many groups along the way.

Muslims were insulted by his call to ban Muslims from entering the country until the country devised a more thorough vetting process. Women were outraged when they heard a recording of his proudly groping women. The Latino community was appalled when he referred to the many immigrants that came to the USA from south of the border as “bad hombres.” The list would go on.

Along the way his colleagues in the Republican party would abandon him. In a remarkable occurrence in American politics, one Republican leader after another would say that they were appalled at Trump’s comments and would not vote for him. The press ate it up. They ridiculed Trump and blamed him as the source for disunity and bigotry in the country.

But he won the presidency anyway.

Trump would not give roles in his cabinet to the Republican politicians that bad-mouthed him. Only Governor Nikki Haley – who distanced herself from Trump’s comments, but not the man – would get a role in his administration, as US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Over the first months of his presidency, Trump would continue to make remarks that angered wide swaths of the country. The media continued to state that Trump was a racist, by not disavowing the support of White supremacists, and making laws alienating minorities – whether a ban on Muslim refugees or edicts to expel illegal immigrants.

By August 2017, when the Charlottesville, VA White supremacy protest came to town, Trump’s comments could be predicted.

Once again, Trump fueled the media’s wrath with his comments. They admonished him for endorsing racism and allowing it to rear its ugly head in the country once again.

The monumental gap between Nikki Haley and Donald Trump was clear. Haley took decisive action to turn back divisive symbols in the country, while Trump called for keeping them in place. Haley calmed the situation with language that reached out to ALL parties, while Trump used language that only appealed to a sliver of the public.

And the media gave Haley little credit for calming the situation while it blamed Trump for everything.

Racism has always existed in the United States; it is not new in the age of Trump. White racism has actually been on the decline for several years according to FBI reports, and it is much less common in the South than liberal northern states like Massachusetts.

It is both unfortunate that Trump aggravates a tense situation, and that his impulse to attack the media – and the media’s impulse to attack him – takes away from the important debate about the symbols of the Confederacy in our country. Haley talked about it clearly and with conviction. But Trump and the media can only talk about each other.


Related First.One.Through articles:

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

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

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

New York Times’ Small Anti-Semitism

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

“An anti-Semitic Tinge”

“Jews as a Class”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The Original Nakba: The Division of “TransJordan”

This year marks 100 years since the Balfour Declaration on November 2, 1917 which endorsed “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People.” The declaration became the basis for the League of Nations (precursor to the United Nations) to endorse the Palestine Mandate which clearly articulated the history and rights of Jews to a reconstituted national homeland in the area now commonly thought of as Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and Jordan.

Article 25 of the Mandate allowed the administrator (Britain) to change the contours of the reestablished Jewish homeland.

“In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.”

On September 23, 1922, the League of Nations adopted the suggestion of the British to divide the territory in two, in a document called the “Transjordan Memorandum.” That memorandum stripped away any mention of Jewish history in the land, facilitating the emigration of Jews to Palestine or the creation of a Jewish homeland in the area east of the Jordan River.

The memorandum also facilitated a complete abrogation of key components of Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate that allowed such separation: that “no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.” Those provisions specifically enumerated non-discrimination clauses that were to be kept in place in the new TransJordan:

Article 15:

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

Article 16:

The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

Article 18:

The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.”

International law was clear that any division of the territory would ensure that no discrimination of any kind be allowed on the basis of religion.

But that is exactly what Transjordan/Jordan became: an anti-Semitic country established by the United Nations which prohibits Jews in a variety of areas.

No Citizenship

Consider Jordan’s Nationality Law of 1954:

“Article 3:

The following shall be deemed to be Jordanian nationals:

Any person who, not being Jewish, possessed Palestinian nationality before 15 May 1948 and was a regular resident in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan between 20 December 1949 and 16 February 1954;”

Can you think of anything more explicitly anti-Semitic than a law that specifically separates Jews from others and bans them from becoming citizens?

No Land Purchases

Jordan prohibited Jews from buying any land in the area that had been part of the Palestine Mandate in an edict, Law No. (40) of 1953 Concerning the Leasing and Selling of Immovable Properties from Foreigners, as amended by Law No. (12) of 1960; and  Law No. (2) of 1962.

Jordan has continued along this path even post its 1994 peace treaty with Israel.

In March 2016, the Jordanian government singled out Israelis as being banned from buying or renting property around the city of Petra. No other country is subject to such provision.


The League of Nations considered at the outset of its endorsement of a Jewish national home in 1920 and 1922 that perhaps the contours of such homeland should exclude the land east of the Jordan River. But international law has – and continues to fail – in two major respects:

  • In JORDAN: The provision (Article 25) to cut the eastern part of the Mandate (and ONLY the eastern part) from the Jewish homeland specifically did not allow the discrimination against Jews from buying land or obtaining citizenship there;
  • In the WEST BANK: All of the land west of the Jordan River was allocated for a Jewish homeland, and obviously with full legal authorization for Jews to purchase homes and obtain citizenship, despite calls by the current Palestinian Authority leadership to have a Jew-free country

The division of the Palestine Mandate in September 1922 to create Jordan was a disgraceful tragedy which denied Jewish history and rights east of the Jordan River. Despite this, people have attempted to expand upon Article 25 almost a century later to divide the land WEST of the Jordan River in an identical course of anti-Semitic charges that the West Bank should not have a single Jew.

The Palestinian Arabs coined the term “Nakba” (catastrophe) for the founding of the Jewish State on just a part of the Palestine Mandate on May 15, 1948. However, the original Nakba happened 26 years earlier, when the British gutted the essence of international law set out in the Palestine Mandate: for all of the land west of the Jordan River to be the Jewish homeland, and the land east of the river to have full legal rights for Jewish worship, land ownership and citizenship.

Remarkably, the Jewish Nakba of September 23, 1922 is seeking a second coming.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Oh Abdullah, Jordan is Not So Special

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

Palestinian Jews and a Judenrein Palestine

Regime Reactions to Israel’s “Apartheid” and “Genocide”

A “Viable” Palestinian State

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

“Ethnic Cleansing” in Israel and the Israeli Territories

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

White nationalists held a rally in Charlottesville, VA on August 12, 2017 claiming that America was throwing out its white, Christian and southern traditions. Counter-protestors showed up in an attempt to rebut their views. Violence ensued. A death.


White Nationalists in Charlottesville, VA August 2017

President Donald Trump issued a statement that condemned hatred and violence, in a statement that was ridiculed by both the right and left-wing for not calling out the white nationalists.

We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides, on many sides. What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives.

The statement of “many sides” evoked the disgraceful statements of the United Nations condemning “all” acts of violence after Palestinian Arab terrorists slaughter innocent Israelis. “Et tu, Brute?”

The mainstream media has used the Charlottesville incident to foster a narrative that has been building for the past two years: that racism is principally a white-male issue, and that it predominantly stems from the south. These white racists have become emboldened under President Trump, who has done little to stem the violence and vitriol.

It’s worth doing a fact check.

Southerners are Less Racist Than Yanks

The FBI does an analysis of hate crimes every year, the last complete year of data being 2015. The frequency of hate crimes in the South is less than in the Northeast.

Bias Attacks in 2015, Average Incident per Number of People

Frequency of Attack
Massachusetts            13,595
Connecticut            31,767
New York            38,381
New Jersey            25,663
Maryland          139,684
Virginia            45,545
North Carolina            48,277
South Carolina            69,946
Georgia          163,086

Massachusetts – which elected the most left-wing senator in the country – was the most racist state by a far margin. A person in Massachusetts was 3.5 times more likely to suffer a hate crime than an average person in Virginia or North Carolina.

Blacks Commit More Racist Attacks Than Whites

The FBI report also broke down the hate crime statistics by offender. The statistics go against the commonly held narrative.

History of Racist Attacks Broken Down by Race of Offender

White Black
2000 4111 1021
2001 5149 1157
2002 3712 1082
2003 3670 942
2004 4327 1408
2005 4117 1357
2006 4293 1513
2007 4378 1448
2008 4229 1399
2009*
2010 3522 1104
2011 3384 1195
2012 2909 1242
2013 3046 1410
2014 2699 1203
2015 2657 1336

*No data for 2009

The numbers show that white people commit more racist attacks than black people. However, there are approximately 5.75 times more white people than black people in the USA, so the data must be viewed by the likelihood of an average white or black person committing a bias crime.

Bias Attacks, Average Attack per Number of People

Year White Black Difference
2000            54,379      38,129 43%
2001            43,417      33,647 29%
2002            60,224      35,979 67%
2003            60,914      41,326 47%
2004            51,665      27,649 87%
2005            54,300      28,688 89%
2006            52,074      25,730 102%
2007            51,063      26,885 90%
2008            52,862      27,827 90%
2009
2010            63,473      35,262 80%
2011            66,062      32,577 103%
2012            76,849      31,344 145%
2013            73,392      27,609 166%
2014            82,828      32,360 156%
2015            84,137      29,139 189%

In every year, the likelihood of an average black person committing a hate crime was much greater than an average white person.

Bias Trend Related to Leadership

The chart above shows some interesting trend lines. From 2000 to 2003, an average black person was 47% more likely to commit a racist crime than a white person. That likelihood jumped to 92% in the years 2004 to 2011. It escalated yet again in the years 2012 through 2015, when an average black person committed 164% more racial attacks than an average white person.

The trends related both to blacks committing more hate crimes and whites committing fewer.

White people were pretty consistent in the frequency of their attacks in the 2000-2003 and 2004-2011 periods. However, the frequency of black attacks jumped significantly in the 2004-11 span. But in the 2012-2015, it was the sharp decrease in white racism that accounted for the dramatic change, when attacks by blacks were relatively consistent.

If leadership accounted for the difference in bias attacks, why would white people not change their actions during the first Obama term? Why did black people suddenly change the frequency of their bias attacks in 2004, and not earlier in Bush’s term?

Was Trump’s election a cause for a change in the frequency of attacks by both whites and blacks? The FBI hasn’t completed its 2016 report at this time. But the leap to conclusions about the connection also has a leap to the nature of cause-and-effect.

Why would a black president make white people commit fewer hate crimes, but a white president make blacks commit more? There was no particular race riot in 2004 or 2012 that could account for a particular tipping point in race relations. Is it possible that the trends are outside of leadership influence?


The lazy mainstream media will fill you with stories that support your own biases. Consider looking at actual statistics before jumping to incorrect conclusions that white southerners are more racist than black Yankees, and that leadership is responsible for all of the disgraceful actions of racists.


Related First.One.Through articles:

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

The Trump Pinata Preserving the False Obama Messiah

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

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015

A Deplorable Definition

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

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

George Soros’ Left Wing Lobbying Dwarfs Goldman Sachs and the NRA

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

If you Only Loved Refugees as Much as you Hate Donald Trump

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Oh Abdullah, Jordan is Not So Special

The current leader of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a well-polished man named King Abdullah II, who has reigned since the passing of his father in 1999. In recent years, he has aggressively sought to claim “special” rights in the holy sites of Jerusalem, well beyond his reach.


King Abdullah II of Jordan

In May 2017, King Abdullah II addressed the United States President Donald Trump and said:

“the Hashemite Custodianship of Jerusalem’s Islamic and Christian Holy Sites is an unbreakable, historical responsibility and an honour to undertake on behalf of the Arab and Muslim nations.”

There were several problems with his claim:

  • Jordan has no custodianship over Christian sites
  • Jordan does not have exclusive custodianship
  • Jordan’s actions underscore that it is not “responsible” as it’s words are very “breakable”
  • Jordan’s basis for custodianship relates to its funds and efforts regarding improvements to the site, which Israel has in abundance regarding the Old City of Jerusalem, (which Jordan opts to ignore)
  • Jordan negotiated those custodian rights with Israel, yet has undermined Israel’s authority in Jerusalem

Here are some details.

Christian Holy Sites in Jerusalem

In July 1994, Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement. Within that treaty was language that related to Jordan’s role at Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem (Article 9.2):

“In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.”

There was no mention of any Christian sites.

Jordan’s Non-Exclusive Role

The Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty gave Jordan special rights for: 1) Muslim holy sites for 2) Arab and Muslim Nations. However, the treaty gave Jordan nothing as it related to 1) Jewish holy sites, for 2) the rest of the non-Arab and non-Muslim world.

While the al Aqsa Mosque that sits at the southern tip of the Temple Mount is an exclusively Islamic site, the rest of the Temple Mount – including the location of the Dome of the Rock – are Jewish holy sites. Jordan has no special rights over such Jewish holy sites and nor any authority over non-Arab and non-Muslim visitors.

Jordan’s Abrogation of Key Components of the Israel Peace Treaty

Jordan has violated the underlying spirit of the peace treaty with Israel in various manners. In August 2017 the Jordanian Foreign Minister and the Waqf were critical of the 1,000 Jews that went onto the Temple Mount on Tisha B’Av saying “This is unprecedented, unacceptable and should stop.” But they have no rights to prohibit any Jew from ascending to the Temple Mount. Article 9.1 of the treaty underscored the point:

“Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance.”

Additionally, King Abdullah’s July 2017 statement that Israel was trying to “Judaize” Judaism’s holiest space was an abrogation of Article 9.3 of the peace treaty which stated:

“The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.”

Jordan’s statements and actions were in direct violation of every sentiment of the peace treaty executed by his father and the Jewish State, as he sought to undermine Jewish history and rights on the Temple Mount.

The Deceit of the Jordanians and Palestinians

On March 31, 2013, King Abdullah II signed a treaty with the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas about Jordan’s role regarding the holy sites in Jerusalem. In that treaty, the parties asserted that the entirety of the Temple Mount was exclusively an Islamic site, and had no ties to other religions:

“Recalling the unique religious importance, to all Muslims, of Al Masjid Al Aqsa with its 144 dunums [the land size of the Temple Mount], which include the Qibli Mosque of Al Aqsa, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock and all its mosques, buildings, walls, courtyards, attached areas over and beneath the ground and the Waqf properties tied-up to Al Masjid Al Aqsa, to its environs or to its pilgrims (hereinafter referred to as “Al Haram Al Sharif”);”

How do either the Jordanians or Palestinians believe that they are promoting “religious understanding, … tolerance and peace,” when they publicly step on Jewish history and faith?

It is also interesting to note that the Jordanian agreement with the PA also never discussed any Jordanian role with Christian holy sites.

“Historical responsibility” of Jordan and Israel

To this day, Jordan continues to state that the very presence of Israel in Jerusalem is a threat to Arabs and Muslim holy sites, and refuses to acknowledge that Jerusalem and the Temple Mount have been anchored in Jewish history for over 3000 years.

Consider language on King Abdullah’s website called  “Custodianship over Holy Sites.

“The Hashemites have stood up against Zionist claims to Jerusalem, which pose a direct threat to the Arab city and its cultural heritage.”

How does Abdullah make such a statement while also acknowledging Israel’s role in Jerusalem in its peace treaty? Is Jordan’s treaty with Israel only based on Israel’s de facto existence and presence in Jerusalem? If Jordan believes that Israel has no role or place in Jerusalem, why have sections in the peace treaty specifically discussing Jerusalem?

The website goes on to discuss the long history of Jordan in fixing up various parts of Jerusalem, including Christian and Muslim holy sites:

“His Majesty’s attention was not limited to Islamic holy sites; he personally helped put out a fire that nearly destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1949. All throughout his reign (1921-1951), King Abdullah I was the guardian and custodian of Christian holy sites in Jerusalem.”

The “investments” made by Jordan in the Old City of Jerusalem, pale in comparison to the investments made by the government of Israel since it reunited the city in June 1967. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in city improvements. By such measure alone, Israel’s rights throughout the city trumps any claim by Jordanians or Palestinians.

Whose “Illegal Occupation”

In July 2017, Jordan was effective in pushing forward a UNESCO decision that condemned Israel’s excavations in the Old City such as the City of David, and recommitted to the claim that Jerusalem’s Old City walls were in “danger.” The Jordanian embassy added that “The resolution stated that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem, and in particular, the “basic law” on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith…. He also said that the decision, which Jordan presented jointly with Palestine through the Arab group at the committee, emphasised that all Israeli procedures and violations in East Jerusalem are null and void under the international law.”

It is a strange hypocrisy that Jordan claims that Israel’s annexation and role in the Old City of Jerusalem is illegal and not recognized by the international community, when Jordan’s annexation of the eastern half of Jerusalem and the “West Bank” in 1950 was itself not recognized by any country (other than itself, the UK and Pakistan).


The King of Jordan claims that his country has a special role in the Old City of Jerusalem and that he advances peace even though:

  • Jordan’s “special role” does nothing to undermine the rights of Jews at its holiest site
  • Jordan’s investment in Jerusalem pales next to Israel’s investment
  • Jordan’s annexation of the Old City of Jerusalem was less legal than Israel’s annexation of the eastern part of the city in1980

The King of Jordan is eloquent but deceitful. He shrouds himself in words of peace as he stirs up a religious war at Judaism’s holy site.

Abdullah has begged both Israel and the Palestinian Authority for some special status in the Jerusalem’s Old City, and each party has agreed to give him some role as a neutered and neutral party. But as Abdullah stretches the meaning of his role and undermines the essence of the peace treaty, it is time for Israel to reconsider Jordan’s role and reassert the Jewish State’s rights and responsibilities at Judaism’s holiest spot.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Time for King Abdullah of Jordan to Denounce the Mourabitoun

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

The UN’s #Alternative Facts about the 1967 Six Day War

750 Years of Continuous Jewish Jerusalem

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Why Does the New York Times Delete Stories of Attacks on Jews?

The New York Times has a tag line “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” When it deliberately omits stories of attacks on Jews within its articles, it must believe that such information is unworthy of telling its declining number (and quality?) of readers.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews in New Jersey

Consider the August 2, 2017 article “Uneasy Welcome as Ultra-Orthodox Jews Extend Beyond New York.” The article described the movement of Ultra-Orthodox (Hasidic) Jews into newer neighborhoods where they hadn’t previously lived including Jersey City, NJ and other towns in New Jersey. The article described the Jews as pushy and anti-liberal, with quotes such as “They literally go door to door and can be very pushy trying to purchase someone’s house,” and “They have become a more muscular political and social force and have turned the generally liberal profile of the area’s Jews more observant and conservative. Lakewood Township, near the Jersey Shore, voted for Donald J. Trump last year.” Lions AND tigers AND bears? Oh My!


Picture in NYT with caption “Martin Luther King Jr. Drive in Jersey City, where Hasidic families converted a dry cleaner into a community center. Some critics claim the center is a synagogue and violates zoning rules that ban houses of worship.”

Is the article trying to suggest that liberal communities in the New York City metropolitan area should be worried about aggressive, law-breaking conservatives moving into their neighborhoods? The article clearly doesn’t believe that it has anything to do with anti-Semitism as it wrote ““People felt threatened,” Mr. Kelaher said. “This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. This is strictly based on the type of behavior. We welcome people to move in legitimately,” and ““We live among Chinese. We live among Spanish,’’ said Mr. Sumpter, who is a cook. “It don’t matter. People is people. If you’re good people, you’re good people.””

The paper made clear that liberals like all different kinds of people. Just not these aggressive, pushy law-breakers who just happen to be ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Is there another side to the story?

How could the liberal paper write about this topic without also including the current situation in Mahwah, NJ, where over 1,000 residents posted vile anti-Semitic comments to get the town to block the establishment of an eruv which facilitates ultra-Orthodox communities to move into a neighborhood. Just the week before the Times article, residents of the town started to destroy the eruv in an act that the police are investigating as a hate crime. If you want to judge whether this matter has anything to do with anti-Semitism, read the comments in the online petition, Protect the Quality of our Community in Mahwah. “Uneasy Welcome?” Seriously?

The Times deliberately omitted any mention about the clear anti-Semitism related to ultra-Orthodox Jews moving into a new community in New Jersey in an article about that specific topic, because it added a narrative outside of its sales pitch to its liberal readers: object to Orthodox Jews because they’re pushy conservatives; it won’t make you an anti-Semite.

Israeli Soldiers Killing Arab Assailants

The July 31, 2017 print version of the New York Times had a slightly different version of the current online piece called “Israel Court Rejects Appeal for Elor Azaria, Soldier Who Shot Wounded Assailant.” The story described how Israel is debating how soldiers should react to Arab terrorists. Its opening:

“When an Israeli soldier fired a single shot through the window of a home in a West Bank settlement this month, wounding a Palestinian assailant and putting an end to a stabbing rampage that killed three people, many Israelis hailed the soldier as a hero.

But others criticized the unnamed soldier, who was home on leave in the settlement, for merely incapacitating the Palestinian intruder, not killing him. They suggested the soldier held off for fear of ending up like Elor Azaria, the former sergeant whose legal case has rocked Israel.”

The article described the story of Elor Azaria, a soldier who shot and killed an incapacitated Palestinian terrorist who went to jail for a “disproportional use of a weapon” despite his claim that he thought that the terrorist was moving and was about to detonate an explosive. The story went on to discuss the debate within Israeli society that seemed to have aggressive right-wing politicians on one side, and dovish liberals on the other: “several prominent Israeli politicians declared that Palestinian perpetrators should not emerge alive from such attacks, which liberal critics said amounted to a shoot-to-kill policy.

One would imagine that the Times would cover one of the most significant stories of the immediate past when writing such an article: the attack by Israeli Arabs on Israeli police men on the Temple Mount on July 14. Not a word.

Three Israeli Arabs shot and killed two police officers on Judaism’s holiest site. One of the Arabs was on the ground – seemingly incapacitated – when he suddenly sprung up and lunged at the police officers with a knife to stab him. Two police officers were killed as were the three Arab terrorists. Here is a video clip of the terrorist jumping to his feet.

In an article with a headline about a soldier accused of using too much force against an incapacitated terrorist, how did the Times not mention  how a seemingly incapacitated killer jumped to his feet in an attempt to kill yet more people? Because that would make the use of “disproportionate” force seem like an appropriate response, whereas the paper wanted to show that simply injuring a terrorist was enough.

The paper’s story was that right-wing Israelis want to kill people for no reason. Showing logic for their position would abuse their narrative.


The New York Times is touting itself as “a leader in its evenhanded coverage of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East.” It  is nothing of the sort. It has become a distorted far-left, anti-Jewish paper, touting a single biased narrative.


Related First.One.through articles:

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

The New York Times’ Select Defense of a Civilian

The New York Times Pre-Occupation with Lies

New York Times’ Small Anti-Semitism

The New York Times Thinks that the Jews from Arab Countries Simply “Immigrated”

The New York Times Wrote About Computer Hackers Charged by the US and Israel. Differently.

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The UN Declares that Palestinian Arabs Should Not Show “Restraint”

The United Nations has long showed that it has a disproportionate concern about the Holy Land. In July 2017, the new Secretary General opted to give its blessing to Palestinian violence in that simmering dispute.

After two Israeli Arabs shot and killed two Israeli police officers on the Temple Mount prompting Israel to install security cameras and metal detectors at the site, Palestinian Arabs rioted and killed several Israelis including Jewish civilians sitting in their homes. After a few days, Israel removed the metal detectors to try to calm the calls for violence from Palestinian Authority leaders and Arab leaders from around the region. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres appreciated the Israeli action, but revealed his bias as he continued:

“I am particularly concerned about the potential risk of escalating violence; urge all political, religious and community leaders to refrain from provocative action and rhetoric; and call on Israel to demonstrate restraint.”

In Guterres’ call to minimize violence he asked that:

  • ALL PARTIES: refrain from provocative action and rhetoric
  • ISRAEL: demonstrate restraint

Why not simply ask all parties to show restraint as he did regarding provocative action and rhetoric? Why specifically highlight that only Israel should show restraint? Is it part-and-parcel of the UN’s determination that every country in the world should fight terrorism except for Israel? That Palestinian Arabs are naturally “resorting to violence?”

The UN has declared that Palestinians cannot and should not be restrained in their reaction to Israel’s actions and existence. It is a tacit call for war.


Arabs shoot Israeli police officers on Temple Mount, July 2017


Related First.One.Through articles:

The United Nations Once Again “Encourages” Hamas

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

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

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

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

The United Nations’ Remorse for “Creating” Israel

The Hollowness of the United Nations’ “All”

US Hypocrisy – “Reasonableness and Restraint”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Will Israel Also Remove an Umbrella from the Western Wall Plaza?

The latest spate of violence in Jerusalem during July 2017 has been described by the mainstream media as stemming from Israel’s erection of metal detectors on the Temple Mount in reaction to the shooting of Israeli security guards by Israeli Arabs. The explanation falls flat.

Metal detectors are found all around the world at mosques, churches and synagogues. Just a few hundred feet from the Temple Mount, metal detectors are in place at the entrance to the Western Wall Plaza. Security cameras  can be seen at the Vatican and Mecca. Metal detectors are found at the entrances to mosques throughout the Middle East.

So why the protest?

It is not about security. It is about control over the Temple Mount and the Al Aqsa Mosque that sits at its southern tip.

Many Arabs and Muslims strongly object to any Islamic holy site being under the control of non-Muslims (known as kafir, non-believers). Jews are supposed to have a lower secondary status (known as dhimmi) in lands that they consider as Islamic lands. As such, Jewish control over an Islamic holy site in a land that they view as Arab is considered extremely insulting to the honor and pride of many Muslims.

Muslims are not insulted by the presence of metal detectors to protect visitors from violence. They are outraged by anything that implies the authority and control of the Temple Mount by non-Muslims; even the placement of an umbrella to act as a protection from the sun.

That is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.

Arab states put forward a resolution at the United Nations in October 2016 condemning Israel for placing an umbrella in the Western Wall Plaza at the approach of a ramp that goes up to the Temple Mount (known as the Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate).

“19. Deprecates the continuing Israeli unilateral measures and decisions regarding the Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate, including the latest works conducted at the Mughrabi Gate entrance in February 2015, the instalment of an umbrella at that entrance as well as the enforced creation of a new Jewish prayer platform south of the Mughrabi Ascent in Al-Buraq Plaza “Western Wall Plaza”, and the removal of the Islamic remains at the site, and reaffirms that no Israeli unilateral measures, shall be taken in conformity with its status and obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”

The authority of the Jewish State at the Temple Mount is repulsive to many devout Muslims, and they have taken to the United Nations resolutions and to violence to purge  such Jewish presence.

Will Israel remove an umbrella to keep the Muslim world from “resorting to violence,” the way it removed the metal detectors? Who is throwing shade on this topic?


The Western Wall and the Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate
(photo: First.One.Through)


Related First.One.Through articles:

750 Years of Continuous Jewish Jerusalem

Arabs in Jerusalem

Jordan’s Deceit and Hunger for Control of Jerusalem

The Waqf and the Temple Mount

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Visitor Rights on the Temple Mount

Active and Reactive Provocations: Charlie Hebdo and the Temple Mount

Tolerance at the Temple Mount

Nicholas Kristof’s “Arab Land”

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

The UN Does Not Want Palestinian Terrorists to be Held Accountable

The former Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki Moon had a terrible history regarding his treatment of Israel. He vilified the country and absolved Palestinian Arab terrorists repeatedly. Unfortunately the new UNSG Antonio Guterres is following in those footsteps.

On July 21, 2017, a Palestinian Arab terrorist entered the home of a Jewish family in the town of Halamish and murdered three people having a Sabbath dinner. The murder was celebrated by the leader of Hamas, the main party of the Palestinian Authority parliament.

Guterres issued a statement about the horrific murders shortly afterwards:

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns this evening’s stabbing attack by a Palestinian perpetrator, which resulted in the death of three members of an Israeli family in the Halamish settlement in the occupied West Bank.

He conveys his condolences to the bereaved and wishes a speedy recovery to those injured.

The Secretary-General again calls on all to refrain from any actions or words that could further escalate an already volatile situation.”

While it was nice to hear that the leader of the United Nations “strongly condemns” murder, the words ring hollow when compared to recent statements by the same man regarding the killing of civilians elsewhere.

  • On July 24 Guterres issued a statement regarding the killing of civilians in Afghanistan stating “the deliberate targeting of civilians constitutes a grave violation of human rights and international humanitarian law and may constitute a war crime.” An important sentiment not issued for Israeli civilians.
  • His July 24 statement regarding attacks in Pakistan said he “strongly condemns the terrorist attack in Lahore, Pakistan, today and calls for those responsible to be brought to justice. The Secretary-General extends his condolences to the families of the victims and wishes full recovery to those injured. He supports the efforts of the Government of Pakistan to fight terrorism and violent extremism with full respect for international human rights norms and obligations.” He was clear in his support of the government and that the terrorists should be brought to justice.
  • In July 25 on a statement about attacks against civilians in Nigeria, he issued a statement “These terrorist acts are targeting people who had already fled their homes as a result of Boko Haram violence. The Secretary-General extends his condolences to the people and Government of Nigeria for the loss of life. He wishes a quick recovery to those injured and calls for those responsible for this heinous act to be swiftly brought to justice. He reiterates the United Nations support to the Government of Nigeria in its fight against terrorism and violent extremism in full observance of international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law.” Other important statement not issued regarding Israel.

The difference in treatment of Israeli victims to other countries is outrageous.

  • Why was the Palestinian attacker only called a “perpetrator” and not a “terrorist” by the UNSG as he did regarding Pakistan and Nigeria?
  • Why did the deliberate targeting of civilians in Afghanistan get a call about “war crimes,” while the Palestinian murderer and support by Palestinian elected leaders was greeted with silence?
  • Why did the UNSG call for terrorists in Nigeria and Pakistan to be “brought to justice,” but he made no comment regarding justice for Israel?
  • Why did the UNSG say that he supported the governments of Nigeria and Pakistan in their fight against “terrorism and violent extremism,” but asked Israel to refrain from action which “could further escalate an already volatile situation?”

The United Nations adopted the Palestinian Arabs as it wards long ago. The UN is loathe to rebuke those it feels its duty to protect, even when they are terrorists.

The new UN Secretary General has seemingly become part of the evil machinery that cannot see the Israeli-Arab conflict from a position of clarity and fairness. It bodes badly for prospects for peace.


UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres


Related First.One.Through articles:

Ban Ki Moon Stands with Gaza

Ban Ki Moon Has No Solidarity with Israel

The United Nations’ Ban Ki Moon Exposes Israeli Civilians

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

What’s “Outrageous” for the United Nations

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Henkins

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

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

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

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

UN Comments on the Murder of Innocents: Itamar and Duma

UN Concern is only for Violence in “Occupied Palestinian Territory,” not Israel

The United Nations “Provocation”

UN Press Corps Expunges Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

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

On July 15, 2017 in Minneapolis, MN, a black Muslim police officer shot and killed an unarmed white Australian woman. You would have a hard time learning about the ethnicity of the police officer from The New York Times.

On July 22, the NYT ran an article entitled “Minneapolis Police Chief Is Forced Out.” The article relayed a lot of personal background of key players in the story, including that the chief of police was the first woman to serve in that capacity and was openly gay. It spoke of a a civil rights lawyer that argued that the chief of police “needed to be fired” because the chief only decried the recent killing of the Australian woman only because she was white, while she had always defended the police in past shootings when the victims were black.

With all of that background, you would imagine that the Times would highlight that the police officer, Mohamed Noor, that killed the unarmed white woman was black.

And a Muslim.

And from the Somali community.

But the Times decided not to mention any of those points, even while it described particular details of others in the story, as well as protests from back in 2015 following the killing of an unarmed black man.

The Times would similarly not describe Officer Noor’s ethnicity in its July 21 article “Woman Shot by Minneapolis Officer ‘Didn’t Have to Die’ Police Chief Says,” or in the July 19 article called “Officer Said He Heard Loud Noise Before Partner Shot Minneapolis Woman.

When the Times did cover the fact that the police officer was a black man from the Somali community (it never wrote that he was a Muslim), it did so from the perspective of the Somali Community.

The July 20 article heading “Police Shooting Rattles Somalis in Minneapolis” would make a person think that a Somali was the victim, rather than the killer. The article wrote that the Somali immigrant population in Minneapolis “sometimes expressed frustration with law enforcement.” It added that Somalis felt that police officers used excessive force with its community and that “many Somalis have expressed frustration with their portrayals in the news media, saying reporters have unfairly emphasized stories about terrorist recruitment and cultural differences.

As if the issue was purely one of media bias.

As detailed in “Republican Scrutiny and Democratic Empowerment of Muslims in Minnesota,” the US House Committee on Homeland Security released a report in September 2015 flagging the problem of jihadists in Minnesota. Rep. John Kline, a member of the House Armed Services Committee said that “homegrown terrorism remains a serious issue in Minnesota.” Liberal politicians including Senator Al Franken and then presidential-hopeful Hillary Clinton acknowledged the findings of the report, while they argued for increased cooperation between law enforcement and the Somali community to combat terrorism.

The Homeland Security report and acknowledgment by liberal politicians was not mentioned by the New York Times. Just that the Somali community felt vilified unfairly by the press, even as the Times called-out “President Trump’s travel ban.”

When a white police officer shoots an unarmed black man, the New York Times repeats the race of each party over-and-again for days. However, when the attacker is not just black, but a Muslim, the Times reorients the story for its readers.

Another edition of the New York Times #AlternativeFacts.

 


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Ties that Bind (and Those Unmentioned)

The Media Finds Religion in Matters of Security. Sometimes.

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

While UNESCO Condemns Egalitarian Prayer at the Kotel, J Street Yawns

J Street has long opposed Israel’s control and administration of lands that it won in the defensive war against Jordan in 1967.

  • In 2011 it urged the Obama Administration to craft language with the United Nations that condemned Jewish “settlements” east of the Green Line (EGL/ the West Bank) – including in Jerusalem.
  • In 2014 it urged the United States to declare that Jewish settlements were “illegal under international law.
  • In 2016, J Street declared victory upon the UN Security Council’s passing of Resolution 2334 with the Obama Administrations help. J Street would take out a full page advertisement in the New York Times on January 5, 2017 thanking Obama for this action.

Did J Street mind that this same United Nations did not care much for the rights of Jews to pray at their holiest spot? Seemingly, not at all.

In October 2016, UNESCO approved a resolution condemning Israel for a wide range of violations in Jerusalem. One of these rebukes addressed the Israeli government’s attempt to create a place for pluralistic prayer along the Kotel.

“19. Deprecates the continuing Israeli unilateral measures and decisions regarding the Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate, including the latest works conducted at the Mughrabi Gate entrance in February 2015, the instalment of an umbrella at that entrance as well as the enforced creation of a new Jewish prayer platform south of the Mughrabi Ascent in Al-Buraq Plaza “Western Wall Plaza”, and the removal of the Islamic remains at the site, and reaffirms that no Israeli unilateral measures, shall be taken in conformity with its status and obligations under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict;”

The “new Jewish prayer platform” was being advanced by the Israeli government in collaboration with the non-Orthodox Jewish denominations to create a space for worship in an egalitarian fashion. As with all activities by Israel in Jerusalem – even the installment of an umbrella! (above) – the United Nations condemned Israel.

J Street was nonplussed.


The leader of J Street, Jeremy Ben Ami

In its statement addressing the October 2016 UNESCO resolution, J Street never mentioned the United Nations attack on the advancement of non-Orthodox prayer at the Kotel. Instead J Street argued for the United States to restore funding for UNESCO which has been withheld after the organization admitted “the State of Palestine” as a member.

J Street would eventually tackle the issue, with a statement in June 2017 condemning the Israeli government on the decision to suspend the creation of an expanded Jewish prayer platform for egalitarian prayer. J Street attacked “Ultra-Orthodox parties” for being behind the Israeli government’s move. It then urged its loyal liberal backers to distance themselves from the current Israeli government:

“The current [Israeli] government, dominated by the far-right of Israeli politics, has made clear that it is out of step with many of the core values, beliefs and interests of the vast majority of American Jews.”

J Street had moved from lobbying the far-left US Obama Administration to lobbying Americans to condemn the Israeli government.


J Street’s positions often seem at odds with itself. It aggressively pushed the US to label Israeli actions east of the Green Line as “illegal,” but then condemned the Israeli government for not taking actions at the Kotel in the Old City of Jerusalem, where it claimed that the Israeli government has no legal rights at all.

Does J Street believe that the Israeli government has authority to create a place for non-Orthodox prayer at the Kotel or not? If the government has no legal rights, then why condemn it? If J Street was so comfortable in stripping Israel’s authority at Judaism’s holiest site and giving it to the United Nations, then why not condemn the United Nations assault on pluralistic prayer?

J Street is a far-left fringe group that does not represent most Americans or most American Jews, yet it lobbied successfully to push the US Administration to adopt a damaging resolution on the world stage with far-reaching implications – for ISRAEL. At the same time, J Street attacked the “far-right” in Israel for lobbying successfully for actions – in ISRAEL. Which is more outrageous? A fringe group of Americans damaging Israel on the world stage, or a fringe group of Israelis lobbying for actions in their own country?


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Evil Architects at J Street Take a Bow

J Street: Going Bigger and Bolder than BDS

The Fault in Our Tent: The Limit of Acceptable Speech

Liberals’ Biggest Enemies of 2015