BLM: Truth, Relevance and Association

“Black Lives Matter” is seemingly a simple statement of fact. To disagree with such notion would be the mark of a racist.

But BLM is not just a slogan. It is also the name of an organized movement, and it is sometimes perceived to be a racist sentiment itself as it may imply that non-Black lives don’t matter. It is important to unpack each of these at this time of social unrest and rioting after the killing of George Floyd.

The BLM Movement

The BLM movement has a range of statements and demands which are disturbing. To highlight a few from it’s website:

  • Defunding the police. While people are justifiably angry at specific actions of police brutality, the call for “a national defunding of police,” is a call for pure anarchy. It is unsafe, unwise and an assault on everyone.
  • Anti-“family”. The BLM agenda seeks to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement.” People should be free to live a life of their choosing so the desire to fight against a “traditional” two-parent family is immoral, and is also counterproductive when studies and statistics have shown consistently that children raised in such a structure do better.
  • Anti-Israel. The movement states that Israel is committing a “genocide… against the Palestinian people” and that “Israel is an apartheid state.” That’s not just outrageously incorrect; it is insulting to Blacks in South Africa who suffered under genuine apartheid and Holocaust survivors who faced a true genocide.

In short, one can be a believer in the inherent value of Black lives but loudly denounce the radical movement.

BLM versus All Lives Matter

It is a truism that all lives matter, whether Black, Brown, White or Yellow. If someone arbitrarily states that “Yellow Lives Matter,” the comment and person would likely be scorned as it would appear elitist and racist. However, to state that “Black Lives Matter” in reaction to hate crimes against Blacks is appropriate. It is a directly relevant statement about a racist situation.

Consider a discussion about the Holocaust. While there were non-Jews killed by the Nazis in World War II including homosexuals, Catholics, Poles and Roma, they were not the obsession and target for annihilation the way that Jews were, and did not suffer so horribly. While It is perfectly fine to have a discussion about Nazis killing thousands of gays, it is inappropriate to insert such a discussion in the middle of a Holocaust Memorial focused on Jews.

Yes, all lives matter, but when engaging in a discussion with people in a moment of pain and reflection, it is important to give them their space to concentrate on their trauma. It is a time for empathy, not self-absorption.

Protest in 2016 (picture from Vanity Fair article, photo by Scott Barbour/ Getty Images)

“Black Lives Matter” is a true declaration that should be given the appropriate space at this time, which in no way undermines the general fact that all lives matter. It is also true that the statement echoes the name of a radical movement which advances horrible ideas which should be shunned. Perhaps a different expression like “Blacks Are Just As Innocent Until Proven Guilty,” might appeal to a basic American credo and unite everyone to concentrate on the legal system to advance and perfect a just society.


Related First One Through articles:

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

Mayor De Blasio is Blind to Black Anti-Semitism

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

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Schrodinger’s Cat and Oslo’s Egg

Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger developed a thought experiment in 1935 in which he tried to explain a situation of a cat existing in a dual state – both dead and alive – as a way of explaining quantum mechanics. In the experiment, a cat in a sealed box may or may not have been exposed to a poison and killed. Only when the box is lifted, is the cat revealed to be one of the two states. The example demonstrates the divide between reality inside the box which is only known to the cat and the two possible outcomes considered by the blind observer.

The situation of the Israeli-Arab Conflict can be viewed in such a manner, particularly regarding the Oslo Accords of 1993 and 1995.

Since the League of Nations (the precursor to the United Nations) supported the re-establishment of the Jewish homeland one hundred years ago, the Arab world fought to destroy it. From riots to wars to terrorist attacks, the surrounding Arab countries and Arab residents in Palestine took upon themselves a jihad to annihilate the Jewish State.

The Oslo Accords seemed to reverse that course. On its face, the Palestinians appeared willing to lay down their arms and accept the existence of Israel subject to a variety of terms. Israel signed the agreement and handed the newly created Palestinian Authority several cities to govern. Over the next five years, despite numerous terrorist attacks, the Israelis continued to try to forge a deal together with the assistance of the United States.

Details of the negotiations were kept under wraps, much like Schrodinger’s cat. The world was hopeful that the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs would be able to conclude a lasting peace agreement. To the outside observers, there was the open reality of Arabs killing Jews and a Hamas charter which completely rejected Israel’s existence but the active involvement of the Clinton administration made people hopeful that peace would emerge at the end of the five year interim agreement in September 2000.

However, Yasser Arafat was unhappy to not get every item he desired in the negotiations and launched the deadly Second Intifada, killing and maiming thousands of civilians. President Bill Clinton told Arafat that he missed the best peace deal the Palestinians would ever see and bemoaned “I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.

Arafat smashed the covered Israeli dove egg before it was hatched.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, U.S. President Bill Clinton and PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat at Camp David, July 2000

The Arab League tried to put Humpty Dumpty together again and save the Palestinians from the scorn of the world. It put forth the Arab Peace Initiative (API) in 2002 which basically repeated the Palestinians demands, with the promise of the full recognition of Israel by the Arab and Muslim world. While Israel rejected those specific parameters, it began to take steps to give the Palestinians additional land once it secured assurances from the U.S. George W Bush administration in 2004 that it would not have to adhere to exact terms of the API.

U.S. President Barack Obama pivoted and put significant pressure on Israel towards the API once he took office in 2009. Under Secretary of State John Kerry, Israelis and the Palestinian Authority (PA) worked under secrecy through the Spring 2014 to try to arrive at a final settlement. The world waited to see if the Second Intifada and Gaza Wars of 2008 and 2012 were going to be shadows of the past, and the imagined Obama magic would render Humpty Dumpty viable again.

But it was not to be. The PA signed a unity government with the terrorist group Hamas and Israel refused to hand over the last batch of prisoners as part of “good faith” measures as Kerry had inserted murderers on the list. Within weeks, the situation rapidly devolved into an intense war in Gaza. This time, the Obama administration blamed the failure on Israel, and ultimately allowed a United Nations resolution to pass in the waning days of its administration labeling the West Bank as “Palestinian territory” which Israel illegally occupies.

Humpty Dumpty has now observed to be shattered and dead for the second time. The only change in 2014 from 2000 was the charge of the U.S. administration as to the cause for the failure, which fanned the flames of antisemitism throughout Europe during the 2014 war with Hamas.

The Trump administration recognized the results of the various failed peace initiatives and laid out a new road map to coexistence which more closely resembled the desires of America’s ally, Israel, rather than the API which parroted Palestinian demands. The Palestinians have refused to engage with the administration and no secret talks are enabling the imagination to ponder whether the possibility of peace is alive or dead.

Today, there is no Oslo egg in Schrodinger’s box waiting to be hatched, but a single reality for everyone to recognize.


Related First One Through articles:

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

The US Recognizes Israel’s Reality

The Shrapnel of Intent

Enduring Peace versus Peace Now

The Peace Proposal Monologues

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

HSBC Blocks Payments to US-Designated Terrorist Organization Fundraiser, Interpal

Multilateral and bilateral relations are being pushed and pulled like never before and influencing not only countries but companies and charities as well.

HSBC, the giant United Kingdom-headquartered bank recently announced that it would stop making payments to Interpal, a group which describes itself as a “non-political charity working to support the most vulnerable and support Palestinian communities.” The charity is considered legal according to UK law.

But not for the United States.

The Palestinian Arab group HAMAS is designated by the United States State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and in an effort to cripple it financially, the US Treasury Department assembled its own list of groups which direct money to HAMAS and other terrorist organizations. The infamous Holy Land Foundation (US-based) was on the list for funding HAMAS and consequently shut down. A few internationally based charities are also on the list, including Interpal, also based in the UK.

In response to HSBC halting payments to Interpal, the organization released a statement on April 26, 2020 slamming the bank for “appeas[ing] those who act on behalf of an alien state,” seemingly calling the United States “an alien state.” The charge suggests that the US may have pressured HSBC to stop facilitating payments to Interpal or risk its operation in the US where it has over 200 branches. However, in other Interpal materials, Interpal claims that the Israeli government pushed the US Treasury to label it an FTO in 2003, meaning that Interpal’s use of “alien state” may be directed towards Israel.

Interpal logo, which includes the entirety of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank

At play are two dynamics: countries arriving at different conclusions about whether a group is an FTO, and using pressure to exact the results one wants.

Terrorist Groups and Their Supporters

The UK has taken a “nuanced” approach to Hamas in that it labels the military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades, as a terrorist group but not the branch which handles community services. As such, it allows funds to flow to the charitable arm of Hamas.

For its part, the United States makes no distinction between the branches of Hamas. The US Treasury states:

“HAMAS raises tens of millions of dollars per year throughout the world using charitable fundraising as cover. While HAMAS may provide money for legitimate charitable work, this work is a primary recruiting tool for the organization’s militant causes. HAMAS relies on donations from Palestinian expatriates around the world and private benefactors located in moderate Arab states, Western Europe and North America. HAMAS uses a web of charities to facilitate funding and to funnel money. Charitable donations to non-governmental organizations are commingled, moved between charities in way that hide the money trail, and are then often diverted or siphoned to support terrorism.”

Interpal objects to being characterized as supporting Hamas directly, and states it simply aids the people whom Hamas also supports, similar to UNRWA. But it is generally clear how the UK would consider funding part of Hamas as legal while the US would not, let alone the murky work of providing similar services to the same people, often at the same time and place.

Political Pressure

The United States has been waging a global war on terror since the attacks on America on September 11, 2001. To be effective, it enlisted the world to help root out terrorist groups, including the United Kingdom.

The United Nations has also recognized the role that money plays in terrorism. The UN Security Council Resolution 2462 (2019) specifically called for all states to “prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts and to refrain from providing support to those involved in them.” While the UNSC called out ISIS and al-Qeda, it did not list other groups like Hamas. As such, there was room for countries to arrive at different conclusions about whether groups are terrorists and charities which support them should be targeted.

While every country must be able to define for itself the contours of acceptability, when allies disagree on something as fundamental and critical as terrorism, there will certainly be cause for aggressive actions and angry responses.

Interpal

While Interpal may claim to be a non-political humanitarian organization, casting itself as handing out aid to the indigent, it has a very active anti-Israel agenda.

It has a division committed to “advocacy,” taking up 10 per cent of its budget, which bashes Israel in international fora. It repeatedly refers to Israel in the most ugly terms while casting Palestinian Arabs as innocent victims.

As an example of its distorted view, it wrote in its 2019 brochure about a hospital in Gaza during the 2014 war:

“During the 2014 Israeli assault on Gaza, staff and patients at El Wafa hospital in Shujaiya were forced to evacuate after the Israeli army shelled the hospital on 17th July…. Interpal is proud to support El Wafa’s staff.”

Left out from this tidbit is that Hamas terrorists were firing into Israeli civilian areas from the hospital and Israel responded first with a “tap” to get people to evacuate before hitting the missile launching pad.


Interpal’s horrible anti-Israel bias is its own business and the group is entitled to its own opinion. The vile anti-Zionist perspective infects many and does automatically mean that they all actively support terrorists.

But to state that Interpal is an apolitical humanitarian group is a bit laughable, especially with a logo which covers the entirety of Israel.

To be a co-sponsor of events in Gaza under the watch of Hamas and then be shocked when antisemitic plays occur is to play naive. Hamas has ruled Gaza since 2007 and its antisemitic charter calling for a death to Jews and destruction of Israel is available to all.

Interpal has been investigated and cleared of supporting terrorism, which goes to the heart of the matter here: should one country be able to pressure another to follow its lead in the designation of a terrorist group? What about the actions of companies domiciled in those countries?

The global war on terror demands it while the urgency for political independence abhors it.


Related First One Through articles:

Differentiating Hamas

The United Nations Must Take Its Own Medicine Re the Palestinian Authority

Oxfam and Gaza

No Disappearing in the Land of the Blind

UNRWA’s Ongoing War against Israel and Jews

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The CoronavirUS is Not Us Versus Them

The hyper-partisan world we live in is pushing a terrible narrative of some people against others in the actual battle between a micro-sized virus combating all of humanity.

Progressives’ Claim of Poor Vs. Rich

Far left media like The New York Times have been writing over the past years about income inequality and wealth inequality and are viewing the coronavirus through the same lens.

The papers write that the poor are “bearing the brunt” of the pandemic and are being “left behind.” Those word choices are simply untrue. Everyone is being assaulted by the pandemic. Rich people are not sitting in the back while poor people are on the front lines fighting the disease to help their wealthy patrons. There are highly educated doctors on the front lines battling for everyone’s benefit, not waiters. The rich aren’t “leaving anyone behind” as everyone who comes into contact with an infected person is being tested.

While lower income professions like fast food establishments do have people working in close proximity and therefore more susceptible to catching the virus, it was a wealthy lawyer from the New York City suburbs who first became sick and spread it to his neighbors. People with lower income have lost their salaries as retail stores and restaurants have closed, but the small business owners who run those locations are actually losing money during the pandemic, not just not making money.

The poor are definitely more vulnerable in not having savings to manage when they are suddenly without wages, but the Times wrote about the pandemic as class warfare. It seemingly believes that elite society has opted to throw low wage workers out of their jobs to keep the wealthy from getting sick.

Trump’s Chinese Virus Vs. Coronavirus

Trump has run on a mantra of “putting America first.” Labeling one’s adversaries with negative names and stereotypes often makes one feel superior and this global adversary affords Trump the ability to play to his theme.

Trump called the virus the “Chinese Virus” because it started in China, rather than Covid-19, the coronavirus of 2019. Doing so provided the president an opportunity to advance an isolationist stance in shutting the borders and keeping people at home against a foreign invader.

Trump is not alone in taking such precautionary steps, but the renaming of the virus was a way of furthering a particular narrative. The shame is that the virus attacks all people and a cure will help all humanity.

Anti-Zionists Conjure U.S.- Israel Coronavirus Conspiracy

During the early months of the coronavirus outbreak in December 2019 and January 2020, the hardest hit countries were China and Iran leading many Arab news outlets to charge that the United States and Israel were waging biological warfare. Some far-left celebrities even accused Israel and Donald Trump’s Jewish son-in-law from developing the virus so that they could get rich from selling the vaccine.

Lost in the discussion is that it SARS-CoV-2, is the latest in a strain Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) which have gone on for years, this one being the 2019 variant which is more contagious. Many pharmaceutical companies around the world have been working on developing vaccines for all strains of SARS for many years.


A virus does not know rich or poor, American or Chinese, Israeli or Arab. It attacks all human beings with the same vigor. It is tragic that a pandemic not only doesn’t serve as a means to pull humanity together, but is used as a vehicle to score political points and further distance people from one another in a time of forced social distancing.

It is a sad commentary on the fabric of decency today.


Related First One Through articles:

Ten Good Men

Rumor Contagion on Coronavirus in Congress

The Media Cares Much More About Journalists Than Children

There are Standards for Unity

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

Organized and Disorganized Antisemitism

Analysts have been attempting to place anti-Semites and anti-Semitic attacks into neat buckets for a long time. Recently, people have described the hatred as stemming from three main sources: the alt-right and the alt-left, and in Europe, Muslim antisemitism while in the United States the third category is Black antisemitism. Some argue that groups like the Black Israelites are essentially alt-right Black supremacists, while others consider they are alt-left members of the Black community who “punch up” against the perceived wealthy Jewish landlords and bankers and established white society. Perhaps followers of the Nation of Islam are a mixture of all the groups.

There is merit to this approach but I would suggest that there’s an advantage at looking at the global antisemitism as coming in two main forms without getting into particulars of the attackers’ skin color or religion as it clarifies how to deal with the hatred: organized and disorganized antisemitism, which should be fought directly and swarmed aggressively, respectively.

Organized Antisemitism

Organized antisemitism is easy to recognize because its actions and words are consistent. There is no surprise when a member of the group takes action against a Jewish person or property, as the language of hatred and disdain are in plain sight.

Consider one of the most anti-Semitic groups in the world today, Hamas. It drafted its foundational charter in 1988 based in large part on the Russian forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the worst possible reading of the Koran.

When Hamas launched wars against Israel in 2008, 2012 and 2014, there was no surprise. When it fired rockets against civilians in Israel, no one was shocked. This is a group that does not simply want to have an Arab Palestinian state, they want to rid the land of Jews whom they view as “sons of apes and pigs” and nefarious Nazis, not simply “colonial invaders.”

Fatah, the competing Palestinian political party is only slightly less organized in its Jew hatred. It does not have a charter which demonizes Jews; they prefer to do that on a daily basis with specific actions. These include naming schools and parks after terrorists, paying salaries to terrorists who kill Jews, and having a law which calls for capital punishment for any Arab selling land to Jews. Their party leader and president Mahmoud Abbas wrote his doctoral dissertation on Holocaust denial and he routinely denies that Jews have any history or ties to Jerusalem and bemoans the “Judaization” of Judaism’s holiest city.

It is no surprise that the Palestinian Arabs are the most anti-Semitic according to polls by the ADL, as their two principle political parties function as organized anti-Semitic organizations.

In the United States, organized antisemitism can be found as well.

The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the most infamous hate group in the country. It hates Blacks, Jews and others who are not White Christian. It was birthed at the end of the Civil War and was effectively reestablished after World War I in the 1920’s. Some claim that it was the rise of the KKK and its anti-immigrant policies that led the United States to curtail immigration years before the stock market crash of 1929.

Black anti-Semites exist alongside White anti-Semites. The leader of the Nation of Islam is a proud anti-Semite who calls the Jews “vermin” and “Satanic” to a standing ovation of thousands of people.

The largest organization that promotes Jew hatred is the United Nations. While it does not state that it is against Jews in its literature, its actions clearly treat the sole Jewish State as a pariah entity, condemning it more frequently than the other 192 nations combined. It holds Israel to a double standard and doesn’t bat an eyelash when member states talk of destroying the country.

Many media organizations are also overcome with antisemitism, such as Al Jazeera and The New York Times. They routinely call Israel racist and exaggerate real or perceived crimes committed by Jews and under-report when Jews are victims. They claim to be balanced and even-handed but their words make clear their systemic culture of Jew-hatred.

The commonality of the organized anti-Semitic groups are their consistency. They do not waiver in their attitudes towards Jews. They trade in tropes and peddle the vile. They call out the Jew consistently, day by day, page by page. They use their podiums to encourage others to join the jihad, the riot, the pogrom, and the genocide of the Jews and the Jewish State.

Hamas’s 2014 war against Israel, the 2016 United Nations Security Council resolution declaring that Jews living in their holiest city of Jerusalem is illegal and the 2018 alt-Right shooting of a Pittsburgh synagogue are recent examples of organized antisemitism.

Disorganized Antisemitism

Disorganized antisemitism is not carried out by established organizations but by individuals and newly formed groups. They are inspired by the organizations which spout Jew-hatred, but don’t necessarily belong to them.

Consider the European riots against Jews in 2014 while Hamas waged its war against Israel. Many people in cities throughout the continent attacked local Jews, incited by local imams, an antisemitic press and a United Nations which routinely vilified Jews and the Jewish State’s defensive war.

The 2015 attacks by West Bank Palestinians against Jews was called a “stabbing intifada” carried out by “lone wolves.” Those attackers watched Palestinian TV and heard the words of their leaders to kill the Jews. They may or may not have been active politically but they had been brain-washed Jew-hatred for years.

Black Americans have been told by their leaders that they have suffered from rich Jewish landlords and bankers. Therefore it may not have been a surprise when they shot up a kosher supermarket in Jersey City, NJ and axed Jews in Monsey, NY.

People have tried to downplay disorganized antisemitism as a non-issue; one-off attacks committed by desperate people which can be ignored. The liberal approach portrayed the attackers as as much the victims as the actual victims, whether the perpetrator was a disenfranchised Black man or beleaguered Palestinian. They refused to recognize the individuals’ inherent guilt or call out the organized antisemitic infrastructure as being culpable for inciting the antisemitic voices in their heads.

So newer organizations have begun to take shape which adopt the models of the prior organized antisemitic groups. BlackLivesMatter produced a manifesto calling Israel an apartheid state and the Woman’s March snuggled up to Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Zionists were labeled as monsters and a new crop of antisemites were born.

Carmen Perez, Bob Bland, Tamika D. Mallory, and Linda Sarsour attend the TIME 100 Gala on April 25, 2017, in New York. CHARLES SYKES / INVISION / AP)

The Appropriate Response

It is easy to address organized antisemites: block them at every turn. Cancel the subscription to the New York Times and don’t watch any videos produced by Al Jazeera or AJ+. Push the United States to block anti-Israel UN resolutions, defund anti-Israel UN organizations like UNRWA and run foreign policy directly between nations and not via the corrupt UN regime.

Shout down anti-Semites who want to march or speak in your town, whether they be the KKK or the Nation of Islam. Call members of Congress to not accept endorsements from people associated with these groups.

And in regards to the blossoming anti-Semitic organizations like BLM and the Woman’s March, demand that they change their platforms or be treated in the same manner as the established antisemitic organizations.

As for the “lone wolves,” surround them, do not empower them. Bombard them with actual facts about Jews and the Jewish State to counter the antisemitic propaganda they have been taught. Engulf them with a robust Jewish presence, letting them know that Jews will not disappear the way they did in Hebron in 1929, and that they should get used to seeing them as neighbors.

A peaceful world of coexistence must be built on some plain truths, and those include honest assessments of relationships. It is time to aggressively COMBAT organized antisemitism and SWARM disorganized antisemitism. The future security of Jews depends on it.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Big, Bad Lone Wolves of Terrorism

The Personalisation of War

The New York Times All Out Assault on Jewish Jerusalem

The New York Times Excuses Palestinian “Localized Expressions of Impatience.” I Mean Rockets.

While Palestinians Fire 400 Rockets, the United Nations Meets to Give Them Money

The United Nations Can Hear the Songs of Gazans, but Cannot See Their Rockets

The United Nations’ Incitement to Violence

The War Against Israel and Jewish Civilians

Bitter Burnt Ends: Talking to a Farrakhan Fan

The Nerve of ‘Judaizing’ Neighborhoods

Black Lives Matter Joins the anti-Israel “Progressives” Fighting Zionism

In The Margins

Considering Nazis and Radical Islam on the 75th Anniversary of D-Day

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Black Antisemitism: The Intersectional Hydra

Antisemitism today is widely reported to come from three main sources: the alt-right; the radical Muslim community; and the far left. What is not covered is Black Antisemitism, which does not fit neatly into one of the standard categories.

And it must be discussed, as Black antisemitism is becoming one of the greatest threats to Jews in America.

Understanding Alt-Left Black Antisemitism:
Racist Gentrification

Gentrification, on its face, is purely an economics matter. The change that comes to a poor neighborhood as wealthier residents move in sometimes upsets the dynamic of the existing residents. Rents slowly inch up for apartments and stores, pushing the residents and businesses out in favor of those that could now afford the higher costs. This is true whether the wealthier newcomers are the same ethnic background as current inhabitants or different.

In Jersey City, NJ, where two black people shot up a kosher store killing a police officer and civilians last week, gentrification has been a vocal issue, and it has focused on race, as much as economics.

In April 2019, the President of the NAACP New Jersey State Conference penned a letter to a local New Jersey media outlet. The article chastised the mayor of Jersey City, Steven Fulop to do something about the gentrification of the city where “lower-income African American and Latino families are being particularly threatened with displacement as investment floods in.” That same month, the Institute of the Black World 21st Century met in Newark, NJ, for a weekend “emergency summit on gentrification.” As covered by Brentin Mock in CityLab:

“The emergency is that too many white people have been moving back from wherever they fled to into inner-city neighborhoods that have been culturally and racially defined as black communities for the past few decades. This white invasion is an “insidious onslaught” to African-American life as we know it, as Daniels spelled out in a blog he penned last November, and so walls must be built, or rather, policies must be built to stop the occupation.”

This opinion is not a matter of economics, but one of racial warfare, and it is a belief held by many people in the black community.

Consider the comments of Joan Terrell Paige, a member of the Jersey City Board of Education after the shooting in the city targeting its Jewish residents for slaughter:

“Where was all this faith and hope when Black homeowners were threatened, intimidated, and harassed by I WANT TO BUY YOUR HOUSE brutes of the jewish community?… If we are going to tell a narrative it should begin with TRUTH not more cover up of the truth. Mr. Anderson and Ms. Graham went directly to the kosher supermarket. I believe they knew they would come out in body bags. What is the message they were sending? Are we brave enough to explore the answer to their message? Are we brave enough to stop the assault on the Black communities in America?

When Terrell Paige was criticized for her antisemitic remarks, people from Al Sharpton’s National Action Network jumped to her defense, sayingHow dare they speak out against someone saying how they feel. She said nothing wrong. Everything she said is the truth. So where is this anti-Semitism coming in? I am not getting it.” While the non-black public was aghast that someone would blame the victim for their own demise, the black community was focused on the perceived threat of a “white invasion” threatening the “Black communities in America.”

The Black community argued that the attack on the kosher supermarket wasn’t about hating Jews per se, it was about defending their communities from an “invasion.” It was a defensive action, not an act of persecution.

This is the identical language that progressives use against Israel. The progressives stand against the “insidious onslaught” of Jews coming into “Arab lands,” and want to “stop the occupation” of communities of color by European colonialists. Do the Arabs shoot the Jews dead? Yes, but it’s not based on antisemitism as much as defending their community of color from “too many white people.” The alt-left logic is that the blacks in New Jersey and the Arabs in Jenin would shoot to kill white invaders if they were Polish or Danish, so the fact that they were Jewish is inconsequential.

Progressives believe that there are particular people who deserve land, community, safety and wealth, and they are not wealthy white people. New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio summed up the thinking of his alt-left comrades well in June 2019 when he saidThere is plenty of money in this world, and there’s plenty of money in this country, it’s just in the wrong hands. Democrats have to fix that.” Progressives aren’t looking for communities of coexistence, they seek a radical transfer of wealth, property, jobs and “justice” to minorities.

The progressive racist approach to gentrification is clear: they want the politicians to take tax dollars from the wealthy white communities and pour the funds into the poor minority urban communities, however, they don’t want those white people moving alongside them. Say no to Amazon’s 25,000 high-paying jobs if it will disrupt the communities of color (thanks AOC). Claim that Jews in the neighborhood are endangering your own black kids because they’re bringing out the haters. If the politicians fail to stop the “white invasion,” then you cannot blame the black community for rising up and shooting a bunch of white Jews shopping.

Tacitly and/or explicitly, the alt-left finds common cause with people of color who gun down white people in defense of their homogeneous minority community, whether in Jersey City or Jerusalem.

Understanding Racist Black Antisemitism:
Hatred of Jews and Judaism

The “alt-right” is often described as being a bunch of “white supremacists” but can be defined more broadly as people who believe in the racial superiority of their own group.

The alt-Right and the alt-Left share a common goal of exclusion. The alt-Right wants to limit immigration to the United States to countries from Europe to keep it a majority white country, while the alt-Left uses the war on racist gentrification to keep white people out of minority communities. The silent separator of the two extremist groups is that the alt-left wraps itself in a shroud of “justice” since it is advocating for minority groups while the alt-right fights to keep its majority status.

Beyond keeping country and community static, the premise of racism and antisemitism is also central to the alt-right vision.

While many of the black people defending the slaughter of Jews in Jersey City could not see their own antisemitism since they believed they were just defending the culture of their neighborhood, many black people have no qualms about voicing their disgust with white people and Jews.

The Nation of Islam is a notorious antisemitic organization which is headed by the black preacher Louis Farrakhan who loudly smears Jews, Judaism and white people to standing ovations in the Black community. Many African Muslim countries also have cultures of Jew-hatred, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in the Wall Street Journal in July 2019 about Somalia. ADL polls confirm that European Muslims are two to five times more likely to be antisemitic than Christians and that the Muslims from Africa and the Middle East are the most antisemitic people of all.

Black antisemitism is not limited to Muslims.

The two black murderers who killed people in New Jersey belonged to a fringe group called Black Israelites. They believe that blacks and Latinos are the true “chosen people” mentioned in the bible and that today’s Jews are imposters. The black Israelites view themselves as righteous and superior to white people and Jews.

These various racists and antisemites receive protection from the broad black and progressive communities under the guise of intersectionality. Many black Democratic politicians refuse to denounce Louis Farrakhan as he is considered a voice of empowerment to the black community. The leaders of the Women’s March proudly associated with Farrakhan. The racism and antisemitism of the black alt-right gets excused because they are a minority group, so The New York Times and Don Lemon on CNN will report that “the biggest terror threat in this country is white men,” even while the growth in hate crimes today is being driven by violent black hatred.

Jersey City’s Brooklyn Jews

The Jersey City Massacre deserves some backdrop and context.

Over the past decades, the rental prices in Manhattan became prohibitive for many people so they flooded into cheaper neighborhoods in Brooklyn which were long occupied by a diverse group of people including Chasidic Jews, Pakistani Muslims, Puerto Ricans and others. The gentrification of Brooklyn pushed many of these people to seek cheaper rents in nearby communities.

Jersey City, NJ looked much like Brooklyn twenty years ago with its views of and proximity to Manhattan, but with cheaper rents. Long a home for blacks and Latinos, many of the poorer residents of Brooklyn came to Jersey City as a place near Manhattan which was more affordable.

Chasidic Jews are not like every other group of people seeking more affordable places to live. They not only dress differently, they eat different foods not carried by local establishments, send their children to different schools which teach Jewish studies and need to be within walking distance to a Jewish house of worship. This means that it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for one or two Chasidic families to move to a place without Orthodox Jews. They need to enter a community with a minimum of twenty to fifty families to support basic Jewish and kosher infrastructure.

So when Chasidic Jews “got gentrified” out of their own communities in Brooklyn, they could not move to Jersey City as individuals as many in the Latino community did, but came looking for a significant quantity of housing. Their move clearly alarmed the existing minority community which saw a “white invasion” and a Brooklyn-ization of their city. It galvanized the hydra of hatreds from across the spectrum of right-wing and left-wing to protest the Jewish presence in their city and to defend the antisemitic murderers.

EMT cleans the area outside a kosher supermarket on December 11, 2019 (photo: Tariq Zehawi/NorthJersey.com)

Whether motivated by racism, antisemitism or fears of gentrification, black people will be attacking Jews again. And until society, the media and political leaders clearly state that being a minority does not provide absolution for hatred and violence, everyone will be complicit in the heinous crimes against the most persecuted people on earth.

Related First.One.Through articles:

I See Dead People

First the Attackers Were Radical Islamic Extremists

The War Against Israel and Jewish Civilians

Anti-Semitism Is Harder to Recognize Than Racism

Examining Ilhan Omar’s Point About Muslim Antisemitism

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Opinions on Facebook

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 217A, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The backdrop behind its passage was the Holocaust of European Jewry, in which an entire people was dehumanized, hunted and slaughtered, and the consequent global goal of making sure that it never happens again.

The first two stances in the resolution’s preamble make this clear:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,”

All people inherently deserve “freedom, justice and peace” and the common goal of humanity is the enjoyment of “freedom of speech and belief” as well as “freedom from fear and want.”

The resolution goes on to enumerate many ways to achieve such goals, such as banning slavery (Article 4) and torture (Article 5), the ability to marry and divorce (Article 16) and change one’s religion (Article 18). While these seem fundamental rights in the western world, they are unfortunately not present in much of the Middle East and Africa.

But the western world has its own challenges with other items published in the UDHR, that of freedom of speech in the world of social media. Article 19 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The notion that people have the right to “impart information… through any media… regardless of frontiers” is specifically being called out in the western world today.

The CEO of Facebook has been called before Congress and people have argued that Facebook must fact-check items before posting them as well as ban political ads.


Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifying before Congress

At a speech before the Anti-Defamation League, the actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen argued that Facebook, Twitter and Google have created “the greatest propaganda machine in history,” one that would have allowed Hitler to run 30 second ads contributing to fringe ideas “going mainstream.”

But such condemnation should be addressed towards the individual or group posting the vile viewpoints, not the platform itself. Facebook is a megaphone / modern soapbox for ideas. It is not a newspaper with a staff which writes opinions of its own.

We have become enamored with attacking the large social media giants by adopting false progressive notions that: 1) social media is media; 2) any kind of “fear” is real and should be considered; and 3) simply being large and powerful is inherently evil.

Social Media versus Media

Social media enables millions and billions of people to connect with each other. The platforms enable third parties to share ideas and pictures with both friends and family as well as people they’ve never met. The interactions may be cordial or hostile; the content, funny or sad.

The social media companies are distribution companies. This is vastly different than a media company which either writes and produces its own content or pays people to write content for them. As companies like Google begin to hire professionals to produce content on platforms like YouTube, it is only at that point that they become media companies themselves.

These distribution companies decide for themselves whether they wish to publish particular content. If Twitter opts to not publish political ads, that is its choice. If Facebook does not want to be a platform for nudity, it has full discretion to do so.

But it is the content itself which should be the focus of attention and possible derision.

Freedom from Fear

While Article 19 of the UDHR clearly articulates that all opinions should be available on any media, the preamble to the resolution makes clear that people should be able to live with “freedom from fear.” As such, any content which calls for violence against any person or group should be banned from all platforms. No ifs, ands or buts.

But what constitutes “fear?” A perceived insult or slight might trigger “microaggressions” such as using the wrong pronoun for a transgender person. But that cannot truly be the benchmark of what the UDHR had in mind.

Many videos by the conservative Prager U have been banned by YouTube, despite the videos not advocating any violence. Dennis Prager testified before Congress in July 2019 that the social media platforms have been banning conservative voices because the media outlets are run by “coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks,” as President Obama called them. Prager said that “liberals and conservatives differ on many issues but they have always agreed free speech must be preserved. While the left has never supported free speech, liberals always have.

Prager considered that “the left” has become overly sensitive about a wide range of issues and have used that as an excuse to shut down free speech with which they disagree. The notion of “freedom from fear” is being abused to shut down free speech.

The Powerful Institutions versus the Common Man

These same alt-left progressives have taken to the notion that large institutions like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Goldman Sachs and Walmart are inherently evil. The socialists in Congress have been looking to pass numerous laws to punish them, tax them and break them apart. While Prager sees the social media companies as liberal outlets, the left sees them as corporate thieves who helped defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

As such, the left-wing socialists have waved the banner of support for the failing media companies who have peddled their half truths for years, arguing that they are on the front lines of democracy. (If only it were true.) But these media outlets can still write their pieces – and use the social media companies as outlets for distribution.


The big social media companies should NOT be in the fact checking business. However, they can improve upon their core distribution business by allowing people to see the source of the content placed before them and have greater control of the algorithms which tailor the content they see.

Allow people to have “freedom from fear” but not freedom from opinions of which they disagree.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Uncomfortable vs. Dangerous Free Speech

The Noose and the Nipple

Students for Justice in Palestine’s Dick Pics

The Press Are Not Guardians of the Galaxy

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

Ban Ki Moon Defecates on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Elie Wiesel on Words

Apostasy

Selective Speech

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

First the Attackers Were Radical Islamic Extremists

First the attackers were radical Islamic extremists, and people protected them – because they were also Muslims.

Then the attackers were radical black preachers, and people protected them – because they were also black.

Then the attackers were alt-right white supremacists, and people protected them – because they were also white.

Then the attackers were progressive Antifa extremists, and people protected them – because they were also progressives.

And each of them came for the Jew – because each of the attackers was breast-fed antisemitism from birth and nurtured by the United Nations which singles out the Jewish State for demonization every day.


The United Nations in New York City

Martin Niemoller wrote his poem focused on victims and on his remaining silent because the victims were the “other.” He didn’t realize his complicity in the crime until he suffered the same fate.

The updated version of the poem today is focused on the haters who come from a variety of groups, with each silently shielding its own radicals.

Except for the Jews. While all of the haters come for the Jews and the Jewish State, radical progressive Jews are at the front line calling for the world to attack the most moderate nation in the entire Middle East. In reaction, the right-wing Jews yell at the alt-left Jews to stop the vilification. And the remaining Jews in the middle stay silent, hoping that not engaging in the bilestorm will provide its own haven.

The Jews have always been everyone’s “other.” Today, they are also “others” to themselves. It is a story that played out 2,000 years ago to a tragic end.


Related First.One.Through articles:

I See Dead People

Considering Nazis and Radical Islam on the 75th Anniversary of D-Day

Muslim Women Debate Anti-Semitism

Stopping the Purveyors of Hateful Propaganda

The Selfishness, Morality and Effectiveness of Defending Others

The United Nations’ Incitement to Violence

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

For The NY Times, Antisemitism Exists Because the Alt-Right is Racist and Israel is Racist

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Juneteenth and the Deceptive Hustle

June 19, 1865 was the day that slavery came to an end in Texas and generally marks the end of the abominable practice in the Confederate States. While President Lincoln may have emancipated the slaves on January 1, 1863, a bloody civil war would have to be fought for another two and a half years for black people to gain their freedom.

The black slaves had their lives, property, work product and dignity stolen from them, and their descendants came to the U.S. Congress on June 19, 2019 to ask for reparations from the United States. It is a claim that is appropriate and just. History is clear about the crime and consideration must be given.

Actor Danny Glover, right, and author Ta-Nehisi Coates, left, testify about reparation for the descendants of slaves during a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, June 19, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Various speakers on different platforms argued that the period of injustice continued well past 1865, as laws remained which kept black people from obtaining citizenship, the right to vote, to receive a proper education and ability to work freely, and as such, the reparations must cover this time frame as well. There is some truth to these arguments although not as clear cut as the situation regarding slavery. Should every child who ever received a bad education (or their descendants) be allowed to sue the government? Are all descendants of women who also didn’t have the right to vote entitled to compensation?

The recitations of wrongdoings kept coming, and the arguments became even more tenuous.

Talking heads with lofty titles argued that slavery exists today in the form of the mass incarceration and home foreclosures among black people, as well as the income gap and wealth gap between black people and white people. They argue that these modern day forms of slavery and injustice which must also be addressed through similar mechanisms of reparations.

This is a dangerous and slippery slope of blending real and perceived rights.

Prison reform is an important issue worth reviewing. Whether the government should forgive and wipe clean the arrest records for minor crimes must be discussed, and there is seemingly no question that such matter has impacted the black community disproportionately. But the laws were made for all Americans to benefit all Americans. There was no malice targeting the entire black community.

Home foreclosures was a matter of individuals, of all backgrounds, not paying their mortgages to financial institutions. These were transactions between homeowners and banks, not governmental laws prejudicing a segment of society. U.S. taxpayers should not provide any compensation to any single segment of the population because of personal financial matters. To fold this unfortunate situation into the discussion of slavery is absurd.

Lastly, the inequality of outcomes regarding income and wealth are byproducts of thousands of variables, including education, location, vocation and marital status. An equality of outcome is not a right, regardless of how many times the alt-left demands. If there are issues regarding the causes of income or wealth inequality based on race, then those are the only items which should be reviewed, and such consideration in no way means that there must be cash compensation offered to the black community. For example, imagine the black community sues the U.S. government in the future because of the disproportionate number of abortions which black women have, thereby reducing the black population and proportionate power. That’s an outcome which results from the choices made by black people, not one mandated by the government.

Reparations for the U.S. government’s crime of slavery is a worthwhile point to consider but it has become entangled in the current commentary about income and wealth inequality. It is a deceptive hustle to broaden the discussion and fatten the greenback pie, but ultimately undermines the legitimacy of the Juneteenth discussions.


Related First,One.Through articles:

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

Covering Racism

There’s No White Privilege for Prostitutes in Minnesota

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

 

 

 

Considering Mohammed Morsi and Hamas: The Muslim Brotherhood in Power

Mohammed Morsi, the once democratically-elected ruler of Egypt, died on June 17, 2019 while in court. His death is a useful time to consider the difference between most Arab Muslim countries dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood and that of the Palestinians.

Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood was developed in Egypt in the early 20th century, not long after the British and French Mandates took control of most of the Middle East. It espoused the adopting of Islamic sharia law in all aspects of society and the unification of Muslim lands to thwart western “imperialism.”

The Brotherhood grew to a major force and was involved in a number of violent acts including assassinations before it was banned by Gamel Abdel Nasser. His successors Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak were similarly cautious about them, but it was the “Arab Spring” in 2011 that truly afforded the group to chance to come out from the shadows and run aggressively in the country’s election in 2012. It won 52% of the vote and was declared the winner on June 18, 2012, with the party’s leader Mohamed Morsi sworn in as president on June 30.

Morsi’s tenure would last just a year as concern about how his reforms would play out worried non-Muslims and liberals. The military took over and arrested Morsi and hundreds of other members of the Brotherhood. Many were sentenced to death, with several – like Morsi – spending the rest of their lives in courts pleading for their lives.

Palestinian Arabs and Hamas

The Muslim Brotherhood’s branch in Israel and Gaza was launched in 1987 together with the first Intifada, and called Hamas. Hamas published its charter in 1988, calling for the death of Jews around the world and the complete destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. It was the most antisemitic ruling document of any party ever written – including from Nazi Germany.

Yasser Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) viewed Hamas as a political rival to his own Fatah party. He did not ban it as much as tried to use and abuse it, much the way political enemies do.

When the Palestinians created the Palestinian Authority and held elections for president and parliament in 2005 and 2006, respectively, Hamas participated with the support of the U.S.’s Bush administration. Hamas won 58% of the parliamentary seats. In its rivalry with Fatah, it fought a mini-war in 2007 to seize control of the Gaza Strip, which it continues to hold to this day.

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim States

The Muslim Brotherhood denounced the Saudi monarchy for both allowing U.S. soldiers on “Muslim land” during Operation Desert Storm, and the ongoing close relationship that the monarchy maintains with the west. The government designated the group as a terrorist organization in 2014, as a long developing post-9/11 U.S. initiative on the “War on Terror.”

Syria banned the Brotherhood and considered membership in the group a capital offense as far back as 1980. The UAE labeled the group a terrorist organization in 2014, around the same time as Saudi Arabia.

The principal backers of the Muslim Brotherhood are Qatar and Turkey. Its messages can be found throughout the Qatar-owned media outlet, Al Jazeera. Turkey’s strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan moved his country much further towards sharia over his tenure. Both Turkey and Qatar are significant backers of Hamas.


The Muslim Brotherhood has some deep support in the Muslim Middle East, with calls for institutionalization of sharia law and a caliphate, quite similar to the goals of the Islamic State/ ISIS. The MB has been banned and prosecuted by the leaders of most of the Muslim countries as a threat to their ruling status, and the leaders use their military and court system to suppress the group.

The Palestinian Authority does not have a strong leader. Mahmoud Abbas has no military and barely a court system. Abbas cannot bring himself to strike a compromise joint government, and he risks losing foreign funding if the Palestinian government includes a terrorist organization. His attempts to woo the Palestinian Arabs to Fatah have been weak, as he has not brought the economy and self-determination which many had hoped for.

Morsi’s life and death is a window into the Muslim Middle East: people who desire a caliphate and to be ruled by sharia law, in competition with leaders who want to maintain their own power as well as access to money and respect from the western world. As long as that non-Muslim world continues to demand Middle East oil and shipping through the Suez Canal, the tension will continue. When it stops caring, the caliphate of the indigent will be here.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Educating the New York Times: Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood

The Time Factor in the Israeli-Arab Conflict

An Easy Boycott: Al Jazeera (Qatar)

Is Israel Reforming the Muslim Middle East? Impossible According to The NY Times

Hidden Reactor, Silent Reaction

The New York Times Refuses to Label Hamas a Terrorist Group

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough