Abbas’s Speech and the Window into Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

The acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas gave another one of his long anti-semitic speeches on April 30, 2018. Much of the western world condemned the speech as something brand new and vile that should not only be condemned, but also marked Abbas as unfit to remain as the leader of the Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs). The condemnation was so widesread that Abbas issued some sort of apology a few days later.

Abbas is an Antisemite

Let’s be clear about some things that the media is not telling you:

  • Abbas did not just say that Jews were themselves responsible for Nazi Germany killing them in the Holocaust, he said that Jews were responsible for ALL of the massacres that had befallen them throughout history. Abbas said “The Jews who moved to Eastern and Western Europe had been subjected to a massacre by one country or another every 10-15 years since the 11th century until the Holocaust in Germany. Okay? But why was this happening? They say that it was happening because they are Jews…. The anti-Jewish (sentiments) was not because of their religion but because of their function in society, which had to do with usury, banks, and so on.”
  • Abbas whitewashed 1,400 years of Arab antisemitism. After Abbas’ harangue against Jews in Europe and Russia, he said “I challenge you to find a single incident against Jews just because they were Jews in 1,400 years in any Arab country.” He should probably review some basic history from the founding of Islam in the seventh century when the Muslim prophet Mohammed slaughtered Jews in Saudi Arabia, to every country that Muslims invaded in the subsequent centuries, where Jews were often given the choice between conversion or death. Tunisia 1016. Morocco 1033. The list is long.
  • Abbas said that Jews were shipped to Palestine because the host countries wanted to get rid of them. Abbas said that many world leaders including Lord Balfour from the United Kingdom, Adolf Hitler in Germany and the foreign minister of Russia all hated the Jews and wanted to get rid of them so encouraged them to move to Palestine.
  • Abbas said he is disgusted by the Israeli national anthem. The essence of the Israeli national anthem is about the longing of Jews to return to their homeland. Abbas argued that the anthem is a farce. “Their [Jews] narrative about coming to this country [Palestine] because of their longing for Zion or whatever -we’re tired of hearing this.
  • Abbas reiterated that the Jews have no connection to Palestine. Abbas has long argued that Jews have no history or connection to the land of Israel. He has made the arguments before the United Nations and to Palestinians. He did so again in April 2018: “The truth is that this [Zionism] is a colonial enterprise aimed at planting a foreign body in this region.” He added that the European Jews have no historical connection to Palestine since they are all descendants of Khazars that converted to Judaism in the eighth century.
  • Abbas made a non-apology. Abbas did not really apologize for his anti-Semitic comments a few days later. He apologized that people were offended by his comments. “If people were offended by my statement in front of the P.N.C., especially people of the Jewish faith, I apologize to them. I would like to assure everyone that it was not my intention to do so, and to reiterate my full respect for the Jewish faith, as well as other monotheistic faiths.” In other words, he stands by his comments and believes them to be true. He is just disappointed that people were offended at hearing his version of the truth. No one has called this out.

Let’s be clear: Abbas hates Jews, not Judaism. The persistent truth is that Abbas has always hated Jews as foreign interlopers in Palestine. For example, he has said that a new state of Palestine will be welcoming of all religions (that would include Judaism), but the PA has existing laws that call for the execution of any Arab that sells land to a Jew. Conclusion: it’s the people, not the faith.

Abbas is a peddler of nasty lies, and many of them are not new. The only additions from the April 30 speech to Abbas’s long history of vile comments are that Jews were at fault for their own massacres because of their “function,” and that they came from Khazar, but these are simple extensions of his prior comments.

So why the sudden uproar?

The Media Has Long Concealed Abbas’s and Palestinians’ Jew Hatred

The United Nations and world media have long defended and protected Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinians in their quest to give the SAPs independence and sovereignty. They have ignored the antisemitism and terrorism from Palestinian Arabs and placed the blame on Israel, as acknowledging Arabs’ hatred of Jews undermines the very notion of peace and justifies many of Israel’s actions.

Palestinians are inherently good, but have become antisemitic because of Israel. The world and liberal press are hard-pressed to charge the SAPs with any wrong-doing. When confronted with something unsavory about the Palestinians, the press tries to paper it over, such as absolving the Palestinians of their overwhelming (93% of people according to the ADL) hatred of Jews. In covering the ADL findings, the New York Times wrotethe Middle East results were not particularly surprising.” Is that because everyone knows that Arabs hate Jews? If that’s obvious, why the sudden commotion about Abbas laying it out clearly in April 2018?

Palestinians “Resort to Violence.” The New York Times actually wrote in 2012 that the virulently antisemitic terrorist group Hamas “took control of Gaza in 2007 and is backed by Iran, is so consumed with hatred for Israel that it has repeatedly resorted to violence.” The Hamas Charter clearly and repeatedly calls for violent jihad and the destruction of the Jewish State. However, the liberal media crafted an alternative reality to make the people of Gaza victims “resorting to violence” instead of being terrorists.

Palestinians are moderate; Israelis are right-wing. The world was so eager to market Abbas as a “moderate,” that it ignored his history of vile comments, because if the leader of the Palestinian Authority was a moderate, his demands were presumably reasonable, and vice-versa. The failure of any peace discussions must therefore be on the “right-wing” (as the liberal press peddled) Israeli leadership.

Palestinian actions are unhelpful; Israeli actions are harmful. Nickolay Mladenov, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, said in reaction to Abbas’s April 30 antisemitic rant: “Such statements are unacceptable, deeply disturbing and do not serve the interests of the Palestinian people or peace in the Middle East.” Seriously? “Do not serve the interests of the Palestinians?” When Mladenov talks about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, he does not say they are unhelpful, he says they are “threatening the viability of the two-state solution and eroding the prospects for peace.” Somehow noxious antisemitism is not an impediment to peace, only Jews living in houses in their holy land.

These factors have been at play for decades. So why the sudden turn on Abbas? Why would the NY Times write an editorial on May 3, 2018 “Mr. Abbas’s Vile Words” that “by succumbing to such dark, corrosive instincts he [Abbas] showed that it is time for him to leave office.” Abbas has always been vile. He has always negated Jewish rights and history in Israel and has been effective at getting United Nations and the liberal media bodies to support his narrative.

I suggest that there are two main points at play here. One has to do with the alt-left narrative of Palestinian reform and the other with the left-wing attempts to parse antisemitism from Anti-Zionism.

Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism by the Global Left-Wing
and by the Arab and Muslim World

Palestinians continue to reform, and are thereby worthy of sovereignty. For several years, the western world has sought to portray the Palestinians as progressing from their violent and antisemitic past (plane hijackings, murdering of athletes, intifadas) to a moderate stance of co-existence.

Consider the New York Times on May 5, 2018 claiming that while Abbas wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial (over Abbas’s 13 years of heading the PA, the Times mentioned this disgusting fact only a few times) it pretended that he recanted. “In 2014, on the eve of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, he [Abbas] issued a formal statement calling the Nazi genocide ‘the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era’ and expressing sympathy with the victim’s families.” But Abbas then tied the Holocaust to the plight of the Palestinians, as though there is a remote equivalency between the slaughter of millions of defenseless Jews in the Holocaust to the failure of the Arab armies to destroy the nascent state of Israel. Abbas saidThe Palestinian people, who suffer from injustice, oppression and (are) denied freedom and peace, are the first to demand to lift the injustice and racism that befell other peoples subjected to such crimes,” calling Israelis racists like Nazis. That’s not really recanting his book on Holocaust denial when he equates the Jewish State with Nazi Germany.

However, his latest comments provided no room for liberal cover. Abbas’s April 30 gratuitous slander against the Jewish people highlighted a disgusting worldview that can never live at peace and negotiate honestly with the Jewish State. The liberals’ carefully constructed fig leaf of Palestinian moderation was obliterated.

Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism. For the Arab world, it has always been one and the same. The Palestinians elected Hamas to 58% of the Parliament in 2007 with statements in its charter that included:

  • “Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.” Preamable
  • In face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” (Article 15)
  • “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. “May the cowards never sleep.”” (Article 28)

It is specifically the presence of Jews in Israel and its territories that offends Arabs and Muslims. They don’t believe that Jews have any rights to be in the land and want them gone. As such, they forbid the teaching of the Holocaust in UNRWA schools and find nothing objectionable about Abbas’s latest speech. The Arabs are both antisemitic and anti-Zionist. One is part-and-parcel of the other.

Yet the western world that views itself as progressive has been at pains to tease apart anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Liberals have argued that criticism of Israel cannot be conflated with antisemitism. As such, vilifying Jews OUTSIDE of Israel is considered an offensive comment and clearly antisemitic, such as saying that Jews were to blame for the Holocaust. However, slamming Israeli Jews is fair game, such as when the BBC said that Israeli teenagers were partially responsible for their own murder since they should not have been hitchhiking in the West Bank. The world was content in blaming the victim in the case of Jews in Israel and the Israeli territories. For the alt-left, no Israeli can ever be a pure victim nor any Palestinian Arab a true criminal.

Abbas’s speech was treated with a yawn in the Arab and Muslim world, as antisemitism and anti-Zionism have long been a single cause. But it has confounded the western self-declared “progressives” who are doing their utmost to criticize Israel without the moniker of “anti-Semite” staining their liberal bona fides. As such, they are throwing Abbas under the bus rather than considering their own disturbing positions. Off with Abbas’s head.

To paraphrase Mel Brooks, it’s good to be a liberal king.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Why the Media Ignores Jihadists in Israel

Palestinians are “Desperate” for…

The Palestinian State I Oppose

Abbas Knows Racism

In the Shadow of the Holocaust, The New York Times Fails to Flag Muslim Anti-Semitism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Advertisements

When Hate Returns

Yom Hashoah, the Day of Remembering the Holocaust, is often a time for people to think about antisemitism generally, and not just the massacre of Jews at the hands of the Nazis and their abettors.

Many books have been written about the history of antisemitism, one of the best being “A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism” by Phyllis Goldstein. She tracks the nature of antisemitism at different points in history and in different lands. In her diagnosis, the root causes are often unique to that particular time and place.

I would like to consider when hate returns to a particular country under a different guise, such as historic antisemitism manifesting itself as anti-Zionism today. There are many examples, but this review will focus on the United Kingdom 1290/1929 and 1713/1939.

Banning Jews from England 1290
Banning Jews from Hebron 1929

1290 England: The origin of the “blood libel,” that Jews sought and and killed Christian children, began in England in the twelfth century. It its original incarnation, the accusation was that Jews killed the Christian, much as they had killed Jesus. Over time, the claims continued that the Jews used the child’s blood on Passover to make matzah and for the four cups of wine at the seder. Whether the people’s attacks on England’s Jews led to the edict of expulsion in 1290 is a source of debate, but the fact that King Edward I forced all Jews to leave the country and quickly seized their belongings and cancelled all debts that they were owed may indicate a financial motivation as well.

1922 Jordan & 1929 Hebron: The British assumed the mandate of Palestine in 1922 and quickly separated the land east of the Jordan River for the Hashemite Kingdom to win local friends, as they tried to do in other Arab lands including Iraq. They promptly ignored key components of the Palestine Mandate which clearly spelled out that no individual could be excluded from the land because of his religion, by allowing the Arabs to ban all Jews from the region. Just a few years later, in response to Arab riots in which they slaughtered several dozen Jews in the ancient Jewish city of Hebron, the British “evacuated” the remaining Jews from the city and moved them to Jerusalem, presumably to protect the Jews from future attacks. Jordan would remain Jew-free to this day, while Hebron would only be Jew-free until 1967, after the Jordanian Arabs attacked Israel and lost the west bank of the Jordan River to Israel, including Hebron.

The British leadership followed the antisemitism of the British people to expel the Jews of England in the 13th century, and would follow the antisemitism of the Arab people to expel the Jews from various parts of the Middle East during the 20th century.

Tolerating Antisemitism in Gibraltar in 1713
Tolerating Antisemitism in Palestine in 1939

1713 Gibraltar: Beginning in 1290, England would not allow any Jews to live openly in its lands for over 360 years. It was only in 1656 under Oliver Cromwell that Jews were allowed to return (presumably under the guise of trying to convert them to Christianity). But despite this new indication of tolerance of coexistence, the British would also tolerate antisemitism.

After a series of battles between England and Spain, the English won the rock of Gibraltar from the Spanish. In the Treaty of Utrecht, as the Spanish handed the island to the British, it demanded that England continue to ban the presence of Jews and Moors (Muslims), as the Spanish were still heavily influenced by the Inquisition run by the Catholic Church. The British agreed, even though they did not enforce it aggressively. (The ban is technically still part of the law governing Gibraltar, even though 2% of the island is Jewish).

1939 Palestine: The Arabs in Palestine were in the midst of multi-year riots that had begun in 1936 to stop the flow of Jews into Palestine because of international law that the British facilitate the immigration of Jews. In 1939, as the Holocaust descended on the Jews of Europe, the British agreed with the Arabs that no more than 75,000 Jews would be admitted into Palestine over the next five years in an edict known as the White Paper. The document would seal the fate of over 100,000 European Jews who became trapped in Europe.

History echoed itself. While the British had finally begun to accept Jews in England in 1656, less than 60 years later they accepted the Spanish demands that non-Christians be barred from lands that they were taking over. Over 250 years later, the British would take on the Mandate of Palestine in 1922, and then be part of an agreement that they would block Jews to satisfy the demands of the local Arab population.


Arabs riot in Palestine 1936

Britain’s leadership had historically followed the urging of its antisemitic populace (in 1290) and the Catholic Church (in 1713) to ban Jews, and did the same in the 20th century in Palestine at the urging of the Arabs in the Middle East.

From the Middle Ages through the Inquisition, Europe believed itself to be a Christian continent and expelled the Jews and repulsed the Muslim invasion. In the 20th century, many European nations have adopted a similar narrative that the Middle East is a purely Arab land and should be left to the Muslims. The European Christians and Middle East Arabs have ignored the desires and right of Jews to their own place in their homeland.

The British are currently debating whether their political parties – the liberal Labour Party in particular – are antisemitic or merely anti-Zionist. The correct question is whether they are outwardly antisemitic or simply tolerate antisemitism.


Related First.One.Through articles:

The Long History of Dictating Where Jews Can Live Continues

No Disappearing in the Land of the Blind

Palestinian Jews and a Judenrein Palestine

The EU’s Choice of Labels: “Made in West Bank” and “Anti-Semite”

My Terrorism

Save the Children

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

 

The Palestinian State I Oppose

It is remarkable – if not scary – to hear many world leaders call out their support for a two-state solution to resolve the Israel-Arab conflict. There are already 22 Arab countries.
I do not fault ignorant people who want to see the stateless Arab people from Palestine (SAPs) to have self-determination. However, I am appalled that knowledgeable politicians would call to create a state for these people today, due to the current dangerous and vile reality of Palestinian society:
In addition to these deep flaws of the Palestinian people and leadership today, the suggested contours of a two-state solution are completely unacceptable:
  • a suggestion that Israel give up its capital city and the holiest city to Jews to the people described above, who had banned Jews from the city while they controlled it for 18 years from 1949 to 1967
  • a preposterous notion that Israel should invite millions of the SAPs into Israel, just because their relatives were internally-displaced people decades ago while they waited for their Arab brothers to destroy Israel
Who could possibly support the creation of a new state with such dynamics?
Anti-Semites. Jew haters. People that seek the destruction of Israel.
I will not support Palestinian dignity that is predicated on denying Israeli and Jewish dignity, nor will I support a “viable” Palestinian state that undermines the viability of Israel.
I completely oppose the creation of such a Palestinian state ANYWHERE in the world, let alone adjacent to the only Jewish state, and in the Jewish holy land.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Watching Jewish Ghosts

Holy Thursday arrived in Seville, Spain on March 29, 2018 with the traditional pomp and circumstance. Donning capes and tall conical hoods (the capirotes), the nazarenos marched through the streets of the city to the central Cathedral as they have done for hundreds of years.

Holy Thursday procession in Seville, Spain March 29, 2018
(photo: First.One.through)

But the hundreds of men in white hoods held a very different meaning for some people in the crowd. While the nazarenos may have focused on their penitence during holy week (Semana Santa in Spain), the scene meant something quite different to the lone American Jew watching the march.

As an American

Americans have long associated people dressed in white robes and hoods as belonging to the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), a racist and anti-Semitic group that continues to have some support in parts of the country. The Southern Poverty Law Center considers the group to be both the most infamous and oldest hate group in the USA. The group epitomizes hatred and violence.

As such, most Americans instinctively cringe when they hear about the group or see their members in the infamous hoods.

It is hard not to have the same immediate reaction when seeing that attire in a very different situation.

Marcher in Seville, Spain March 29, 2018
(photo: First.One.through)

As a Jew

Jews cannot come to Spain and not consider how few Jews remain in the country. The expulsion of the Jews in the summer of 1492 is marked in collective memory, much like the Holocaust of 1939-1945.

The cleansing of the Jews in Spain had an earlier start in Seville, as it was in that city that the Spanish Inquisition really got its start. In 1391, a preacher by the name of Don Fernando Martinez lectured his congregants that Jews were evil and were infiltrating Spanish society. While the riots that broke out in March were put down, the mob gathered strength and plundered the Jewish Quarter of the city in June. Roughly 4,000 people were killed. The synagogues in the city were either destroyed or converted to churches and the Jewish community was decimated.

Within two years, King Henry III of Castile (1379-1406) passed judgement on the preacher and the city itself for what had transpired. Few Jews returned and the city. That year, in 1393, the first brotherhood (hermanad) appeared called Las Negras. As a sign of penance during Semana Santa, the members donned white robes and capirotes, and have continued to do so until this day.

In time, other brotherhoods would cover the city. They would wear their own colors of Black-and-white, all purple or green. Over holy week, they would carry large candles and march towards the cathedral, many handing out candies to the children who would normally be scared of such scene.

There were no longer Jews in the city to care or remember.

Nazareno walking in Seville, Spain March 29, 2018
(photo: First.One.through)

This American Jew

I have no doubt that the Catholics celebrating Holy Week in Seville have no idea that the origins of their processions stemmed from their massacre of Jews. I do not even think that they ponder why their region of Spain uniquely uses this custom. The area of southern Spain is known as Andalusia, and is the part of Spain that was under Muslim rule from the 700’s until the Catholics expelled them in 1248. In all, I believe that today’s Catholics’ desire to seek purity is self-reflecting, and does not consider that their ritual comes from evicting all other religions from the province.

But this American Jew observes too many things. Like someone attending a funeral service at a cemetery who looks off in the distance to see cars go by without a care, I do not blame the Catholics for their indifference to my plight as they go about their own day. However, I cannot help see the ghosts of the Jews of Spain as I watch their procession during Semana Santa in Seville.


Related First.One.Through video:

1001 Years of Expulsions (music from Schindler’s List)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

In the Shadow of the Holocaust, The New York Times Fails to Flag Muslim Anti-Semitism

On March 23, 2018, an 85-year old Holocaust survivor was found brutally murdered in her apartment in Paris, France. The French authorities have been loathe to call the attack anti-Semitism, and the New York Times has been similarly adamant in not mentioning that the killers were Muslim.

In an article without any pictures on page A7 of the March 27, 2018 New York printed edition, the article noted how the French did not clearly call the murder stemming from anti-Semitism, writing:

“The Paris prosecutor’s office said on Monday that Ms. Knoll had been killed because of her ‘membership, real or supposed, of the victim of a particular religion,’ – a roundabout way of saying she was killed because she was Jewish.”

It was appropriate that the paper spelled out what the prosecutor’s failed to state clearly – that the victim was attacked because of anti-Semitism. It is therefore surprising that the paper would similarly fail to identify the attackers in this incident – and many others in France – as being Muslims.

The Times wrote that the Paris prosecutor’s office said that the two men arrested for the murder were from “North African origin,” but failed to clarify that almost all of the men that moved to Paris from North Africa were Muslim.

When the Times gave background about the murder of an elderly Jewish woman, Sarah Halami, last year in France, it would only write that the killer was “a man of Malian origin who shouted ‘God is Great’ before throwing her out a window.” Did the paper clarify that he was Muslim, that 95% of Mali is Muslim, or that he actually said “Allahu Akbar” in Arabic? No.

When the Times wrote about the murder of four people in a Parisian kosher supermarket attack in 2015, it rightly called the attack antisemitic, but it only noted that the killer was “Amedy Coulibaly, a heavily armed Frenchman.” Did it mention that he was a pro-ISIS Islamic radical of Malian descent? No.

When the Times described the “2012 assault on a Jewish school in Toulouse by Mohammed Merah, who killed three children and a teacher after killing three soldiers,” did it add that he was a Muslim of Algerian descent that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda? No.

Did the Times give any color as to root cause of the murder of an elderly Jew? Well, it did – because of perceived Jewish actions. “The suspect ‘said that the Jews have the money, and that was the reason he attacked her,’ Mr. Kalifat said [who heads a French Jewish organization.]” The problem was that Jews have the money. There was no mention of noxious Islamic Jew-hatred.

This has become standard practice for the New York Times, to conceal the background of the attackers, especially if they are Muslim.

The Times does not touch the much more prevalent anti-Semitism in the Muslim community than in France generally. The ADL released a report of Jew-hatred around the world and broke down the details by religion. The results were startling about the perception of Jews :

  • Jews have too much power in the business world: 35% of Christians; 65% of Muslims; 25% of Atheists held such views in France
  • Jews have too much power in the financial markets: 27% of Christians; 64% of Muslims; 23% of Atheists
  • Jews have too much power in the global affairs: 21% of Christians; 54% of Muslims; 19% of Atheists
  • Jews control the media: 21% of Christians; 61% of Muslims; 18% of Atheists

The disparity continued for seven other opinions. Overall, the ADL concluded that 49% of Muslims in France are anti-Semites compared to 17% of French Christians and 14% of French atheists.

The Holocaust of the Jews in Europe during World War II happened at the hands of Christians. The terrorism against the Jews worldwide today is happening at the hands of Muslim extremists. And the media is remaining silent as it seeks to curtail “Islamophobia.”


Related First.One.Through articles:

Covering Racism

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

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

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

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

The “Diplomatic Settler”

The New York Times has a Jew problem, or more specifically, a huge problem with any Jews living in parts of the “Arab Middle East.”

In a March 8, 2018 article called “No Man’s Land: New U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem May Lie Partly Outside Israel,” the Times came up with a new term that was both meaningless and said much about how the liberal paper thinks of Jews living east of the 1949 Armistice Lines.

In describing the planned relocation of the U.S. embassy to an area in Jerusalem that possibly partially sat in the ‘No Man’s Land’ that existed between 1949 and 1967, the paper wrote:

“The dispute could turn the American ambassador, David M. Friedman, an avid supporter of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, into a new kind of diplomatic settler himself.”

That’s quite a phrase, “diplomatic settler.” It’s also completely nonsensical. U.S. ambassadors are U.S. citizens, not Israeli. How can an American be a settler? Simply by being Jewish?

There was a time that a “settler” meant any Israeli that moved into a new development over the Green Line in Judea & Samaria / the West Bank. The physical new town was known as a “settlement” and the inhabitants were known as “settlers.” The homes defined the people.

Over time, a pro-Palestinian narrative took hold in much of the world which inverted that formula. For them, the people (settlers) define the homes (settlements). Specifically, any Israeli Jew that lives over the invisible Green Line is known as a settler. (This is in sharp contrast to Israeli Muslims – like the thousands of Arabs in eastern Jerusalem that have taken Israeli citizenship – that are never considered “settlers.”) Presumably, the rationale for focusing on people is based on a very broad reading of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that Israel’s policies enabling Jews to live in the land that it took from Jordan in 1967 is effectively a “transfer of population,” possibly runs counter to that international law.

But The New York Times moved the definition of a settler yet again, in a giant anti-Semitic leap.

For anti-Zionists like the New York Times, ANY Jew, regardless of citizenship should be considered a settler if they live east of the Green Line. Hence the U.S. ambassador to Israel would become a “diplomatic settler,” simply because he’s Jewish. If the U.S. Ambassador to Israel were Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or any other religion, presumably the diplomatic settler moniker wouldn’t stick.

This new approach could lead to all sorts of interesting titles.

  • “Tourist Settler:”  A foreign Jewish traveler visiting Bethlehem and staying overnight
  • “Businessman Settler:” Any Jewish traveler doing business in Jericho who keeps an apartment in the city
  • “Student Settler.” A foreign Jew studying in the West Bank

What would happen if the United States decided to recognize a State of Palestine along the lines agreed to thus far between the principles, in Gaza and Area A of the West Bank, and established a U.S. embassy in Bethlehem. If that U.S. ambassador to Palestine was Jewish, I guess the Times would also label him a “Diplomatic Settler.” Only a non-Jewish diplomat could avoid having such title, and not be branded a colonialist interloper.

It has long been clear that Palestinians are the most anti-Semitic people on the planet and that the leaders of the Palestinian Authority desire a new country free of any Israeli Jews. How refreshing to learn that the alt-left similarly endorses a completely Jew-free land. Even of American Jewish diplomats.


Related First.One.Through articles:

NY Times Cannot Even be Even-Handed When Describing “No Man’s Land”

The New York Times Inverts the History of Jerusalem

750 Years of Continuous Jewish Jerusalem

The Arguments over Jerusalem

Jerusalem, and a review of the sad state of divided capitals in the world

The anthem of Israel is JERUSALEM

The Battle for Jerusalem

FirstOneThrough music videos:

Judea & Samaria (music by the Foo Fighters)

The 1967 Borders (music by The Kinks)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Covering Racism

There are certain types of hatred that stand apart as evil. Without any basis or rationale, some people choose to hate others simply for who they are as inferior and despicable human beings.

The Media’s Treatment of White Men,
including Richard Spencer

In the current heated political environment, the mainstream media has written extensively about the “alt-right,” the white male prejudice. It continues to highlight the system of “patriarchy” of older white men, based on a primitive notion of “cling[ing] to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” as Barack Obama stated in 2008. Obama’s fellow Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi commented similarly in 2016 that “white — non-college-educated white males have voted Republican… because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G’s, God being the woman’s right to choose.

The media gave significant coverage to such white narrow-mindedness, focusing on a particular person, Richard Spencer.

In articles and editorials from late 2016 until now, The New York Times reported on “White Nationalist Richard Spencer“”s speaking engagements and protest marches. The pieces quoted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which tracks hate groups, about Spencer’s background as “a well-known leader of the so-called alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that embraces white nationalism.


P
icture of fights breaking out at Richard Spencer talk at Michigan State University on March 5, 2018, as shown on HuffPo

These are stories to be covered, and the media used much ink to tell the stories.

But the media would remain mum – completely silent – on the racism from the black and Muslim communities.

The Media’s Treatment of Black and Muslim Men,
including Louis Farrakhan

Various agencies produce reports of hate crimes and opinions around the world. The FBI produces a report on hate crime statistics in the United States every year. The media’s coverage was a pathetic analysis that opted to echo its narrative that white men are racists and blacks and Muslims are victims.

As reviewed in “The NY Times Discolors Hate Crimes,” the paper chose a header for its reporting “U.S. Hate Crimes Surge 6%, Fueled by Attacks on Muslims” in 2016, even though attacks on Jews dwarfed the number of attacks on Muslims. An analysis of the statistics would have shown the likelihood of white people committing a hate crime dropped in half between 2001 and 2015, and that black people were much more likely to commit a hate crime than white people.

The reporting would be skewed again in 2017, as detailed in “Black People are Homophobic,” which showed how black people are statistically much more likely to commit anti-Semitic and anti-LGBT crimes than white people. But the media would not write about it.

When the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) produced a survey of anti-Semitism around the world in 2015, which clearly demonstrated that Muslims were two to five times more likely to hate Jews than Christians living in the same country, the media also remained silent.

So it was not a surprise when the noted black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan delivered a vile anti-Semitic speech on February 25, 2018, that the NY Times would not mention it. His comment that “White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through,” would not reach The New York Times’ readers. The SPLC review of the Minister of Hate detailing the hatred of his Nation of Islam group, including “While Jews remain the primary target of Farrakhan’s vitriol, he is also well known for bashing gay men and lesbians, Catholics and, of course, the white devils, whom he calls “potential humans … [who] haven’t evolved yet.”,” would remain hidden.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan said the “Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out.” (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Racism and anti-Semitism are noxious and terrible, and should be covered by the media. When the mainstream media only highlights racism and anti-Semitism when it is promoted by white men but fails to cover it when it comes from blacks and Muslims, which is much more prevalent, it is worse than #AlternativeFacts. It is racism itself.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

Abbas Knows Racism

Where’s the March Against 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

Where’s the March Against Anti-Semitism?

The weekend of January 20, 2018 saw another run of the Women’s March around the United States. Various cities including New York City, Chicago and Washington DC had famous speakers address the crowds who came out to speak on behalf of a range of issues related to women’s rights ranging from equal pay, sexual violence and abortion.

Several groups still felt left out of the second annual march, including black women and the LGBT community. Those communities argued that it is women of color and the gay women that are suffering the most crimes, but the agenda had been controlled principally by straight white women.

They are not wrong on that first point.

The FBI produces a review of hate crime every year, and in November 2017 it published its report of Hate Crime Statistics in the US for 2016. The raw data supports the contention that blacks suffer many more hate crimes than whites or Hispanics, especially on a proportionate basis. It is even more true that the LGBT community suffers disproportionately. With an estimated population of 10 million in the United States, the 1,386 hate crimes committed against LGBT people meant that they were over 2.5 times more likely to be attacked than an average black person, who suffered 2,220 hate crimes among a black population of 43 million.

But the reality is that the group that suffers the most hate crimes are Jews. Year-in and year-out. And no one speaks up for them at these marches.

While one out of every 19,359 blacks suffered a hate crime, and one out of every 7,215 LGBT people were attacked, the staggering fact of 2016 was that one out of every 6,148 Jews was the victim of a hate crime (862 attacks against a population of 5.3 million).

But the women’s marches did not address rampant Jew hatred. In 2017 they opted instead to invite Israel-basher Linda Sarsour to address the crowds. In 2018, many Jewish groups participated in the march, but did not bring up antisemitism and simply focused on the issue of women’s rights.

The black and LGBT community actively pushed their narrow agenda forward, but Jewish groups were reluctant to do so. Which groups were correct in how they handled their involvement in the march?

More pointedly, where is the national march against antisemitism? How is it that cities can gather thousands of people to stand up to “Islamophobia,” but cannot even gather dozens to speak out against the more prevalent antisemitism?


Related First.One.Through articles:

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

The Selfishness, Morality and Effectiveness of Defending Others

New York Times Finds Racism When it Wants

Pride. Jewish and Gay

Black People are Homophobic

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

Totalities

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

The Highbrow Anti-Semite

It is sometimes comfortable to delude oneself into thinking that all antisemites are simply stupid, ignorant oafs. The kind of primitive idiots that take glory in terrorist acts of blowing up pizza stores, stabbing teenagers and shooting Jews on the highway.

Regrettably, antisemitism comes in all varieties. Many are indeed uneducated fools, but some are highly educated lawyers who speak on the global stage.

Consider the lawyer, Hiba Husseini. Her bio is most impressive. She holds a JD from Georgetown University, a master’s degree in political science from the George Washington University, a master’s degree in finance from the University of Sorbonne, and a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Tennessee. She sits on various boards and currently chairs the Legal Committee to Final Status Negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis.

With such a pedigree and role, her opinions are sought out. They have clout and influence a wide range of people.

And that is part of the problem.

A review of Husseini’s work on a plenary session at the United Nations in 2016 where she was part of a conference to discuss new approaches to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reveals a disturbing stench of Jew-hatred. In her commentary, Husseini made the following observation:

“Ms. HUSSEINI, noting that Israel had presented conflict-related issues as political ones to be dealt with at a bilateral level, said international law should become the basis of negotiations.  The Zionist idea to dominate the area from the Nile to the Euphrates was well known, but Israel realized that the two-State solution would not take it in that direction.”

Remarkable. This was not the vile antisemitic hatred of Hamas which quoted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its 1988 charter. This was not lifted from the acting-President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas’s doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial which he wrote many years ago.

This was a current comment from a US-educated lawyer at the United Nations, proclaiming that the Jewish State seeks to assume control of the broad Middle East, including Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. With such a mindset – and declaration at a global body – how could anyone possibly trust the Israelis to arrive at peace in the narrow strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, if their aspirations are to dominate every country in the region?


Hiba Husseini speaking at United Nations, 2016

Is there a modicum of truth to Husseini’s accusations? None, or more accurately, the opposite is true. International law in 1920 and 1922 specifically stated that the entirety of the Mandate of Palestine, which today consists of Gaza, Israel, the West Bank and Jordan, could not exclude any person on the basis of his religion. But that is precisely what Jordan did in 1949 when it evicted all Jews from the West Bank and subsequently excluded any Jews from gaining citizenship in 1954. It is also exactly what the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations seek in the West Bank and Gaza – lands they argue should be Jew-free.

Israelis do not seek “to dominate the area from the Nile to the Euphrates,” but to be able to LIVE throughout the region as well as have sovereignty in a viable amount of the land between the Mediterranean and Jordan River. The Arab narrative is not just an inversion of Israel’s desires, but it washes the crimes of ethnic cleansing and antisemitism from Arab hands.

People have come to expect the antisemitism from Palestinian Arabs, as the 2015 Anti-Defamation League poll confirmed that almost every single Palestinians is an anti-Semite. But people must continue to monitor the evil spittle that comes from the mouths of educated anti-Semites, that infuse their lies into mainstream society.


Related First.One.Through articles:

What do you Recognize in the Palestinians?

The Original Nakba: The Division of “TransJordan”

A “Viable” Palestinian State

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

Paying to Murder Jews: From Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Palestinian Authority

New York Times’ Tales of Israeli Messianic War-Mongering

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Religious Countries Respond to Israel’s Jerusalem

The media has focused on US President Trump’s threats to withhold funds from countries that condemned the US for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the announcement that it will move its embassy from Tel Aviv to the capital city, as an impetus for some countries to fund in a particular manner. Perhaps it is worth at least discussing – on Christmas Day – the vote on the basis of religion.

There were nine countries that voted against the United Nations General Assembly resolution of condemnation (in other words, supportive of the United States and Israel). They were Christian and Jewish countries:

  • Guatemala: Roman Catholic, Protestant, indigenous Mayan beliefs
  • Honduras: Roman Catholic, Protestant, indigenous Mayan beliefs
  • Israel: Jewish 75.5%, Muslim 16.8%, Christian 2.1%, Druze 1.7%, other 3.9%
  • Marshall Islands: Protestant 54.8%, Assembly of God 25.8%, Roman Catholic 8.4%, Bukot nan Jesus 2.8%, Mormon 2.1%, other Christian 3.6%, other 1%, none 1.5%
  • Micronesia: Roman Catholic 50%, Protestant 47%, other 3%
    Nauru: Nauru Congregational 35.4%, Roman Catholic 33.2%, Nauru Independent Church 10.4%, other 14.1%, none 4.5%, unspecified 2.4%
  • Palau: Roman Catholic 41.6%, Protestant 23.3%, Modekngei 8.8% (indigenous to Palau), Seventh-Day Adventist 5.3%, Jehovah’s Witness 0.9%, Latter-Day Saints 0.6%, other 3.1%, unspecified or none 16.4%
  • Togo: Christian 29%, Muslim 20%, indigenous beliefs 51%
  • United States: Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4%

There were also thirty-five countries that abstained from the UN vote.

  • Antigua and Barbuda: Anglican 25.7%, Seventh Day Adventist 12.3%, Pentecostal 10.6%, Moravian 10.5%, Roman Catholic 10.4%, Methodist 7.9%, Baptist 4.9%, Church of God 4.5%, other Christian 5.4%, other 2%, none or unspecified 5.8%
  • Argentina: Roman Catholic 92% (less than 20% practicing), Protestant 2%, Jewish 2%, other 4%
  • Australia: Catholic 26.4%, Anglican 20.5%, other Christian 20.5%, Buddhist 1.9%, Muslim 1.5%, other 1.2%, unspecified 12.7%, none 15.3% (2001 Census)
  • Bahamas:
  • Benin: Christian 42.8% (Catholic 27.1%, Celestial 5%, Methodist 3.2%, other Protestant 2.2%, other 5.3%), Muslim 24.4%, Vodoun 17.3%, other 15.5%
  • Bhutan: Lamaistic Buddhist 75%, Indian- and Nepalese-influenced Hinduism 25%
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina: Muslim 40%, Orthodox 31%, Roman Catholic 15%, other 14%
  • Cameroon: indigenous beliefs 40%, Christian 40%, Muslim 20%
  • Canada: Roman Catholic 42.6%, Protestant 23.3% (including United Church 9.5%, Anglican 6.8%, Baptist 2.4%, Lutheran 2%), other Christian 4.4%, Muslim 1.9%, other and unspecified 11.8%, none 16%
  • Colombia: Roman Catholic 90%, other 10%
  • Croatia: Roman Catholic 87.8%, Orthodox 4.4%, Muslim 1.3%, Protestant 0.3%, others and unknown 6.2%
  • Czech Republic: Roman Catholic 26.8%, Protestant 2.1%, other 3.3%, unspecified 8.8%, unaffiliated 59%
  • Dominican Republic: Roman Catholic 95%, other 5%
  • Equatorial Guinea: nominally Christian and predominantly Roman Catholic, pagan practices
  • Fiji: Christian 64.5% (Methodist 34.6%, Roman Catholic 9.1%, Assembly of God 5.7%, Seventh Day Adventist 3.9%, Anglican 0.8%, other 10.4%), Hindu 27.9%, Muslim 6.3%, Sikh 0.3%
  • Haiti: Roman Catholic 80%, Protestant 16% (Baptist 10%, Pentecostal 4%, Adventist 1%, other 1%), none 1%, other 3%
  • Hungary: Roman Catholic 51.9%, Calvinist 15.9%, Lutheran 3%, Greek Catholic 2.6%, other Christian 1%, other or unspecified 11.1%, unaffiliated 14.5%
  • Jamaica: Protestant 62.5% (Seventh-Day Adventist 10.8%, Pentecostal 9.5%, Other Church of God 8.3%, Baptist 7.2%, New Testament Church of God 6.3%, Church of God in Jamaica 4.8%, Church of God of Prophecy 4.3%, Anglican 3.6%, other Christian 7.7%), Roman Catholic 2.6%, other or unspecified 14.2%, none 20.9%
  • Kiribati: Roman Catholic 55%, Protestant 36%, Mormon 3.1%, Bahai 2.2%, Seventh-Day Adventist 1.9%, other 1.8%
  • Latvia: Lutheran 19.6%, Orthodox 15.3%, other Christian 1%, other 0.4%, unspecified 63.7%
  • Lesotho: Christian 80%, indigenous beliefs 20%
  • Malawi: Christian 79.9%, Muslim 12.8%, other 3%, none 4.3%
  • Mexico: Roman Catholic 76.5%, Protestant 6.3% (Pentecostal 1.4%, Jehovah’s Witnesses 1.1%, other 3.8%), other 0.3%, unspecified 13.8%, none 3.1%
  • Panama: Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant 15%
  • Paraguay: Roman Catholic 89.6%, Protestant 6.2%, other Christian 1.1%, other or unspecified 1.9%, none 1.1%
  • Philippines: Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesiani Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1%
  • Poland: Roman Catholic 89.8% (about 75% practicing), Eastern Orthodox 1.3%, Protestant 0.3%, other 0.3%, unspecified 8.3%
  • Romania: Eastern Orthodox (including all sub-denominations) 86.8%, Protestant (various denominations including Reformate and Pentecostal) 7.5%, Roman Catholic 4.7%, other (mostly Muslim) and unspecified 0.9%
  • Rwanda: Roman Catholic 56.5%, Protestant 26%, Adventist 11.1%, Muslim 4.6%, indigenous beliefs 0.1%, none 1.7%
  • Solomon Islands: Church of Melanesia 32.8%, Roman Catholic 19%, South Seas Evangelical 17%, Seventh-Day Adventist 11.2%, United Church 10.3%, Christian Fellowship Church 2.4%, other Christian 4.4%, other 2.4%, unspecified 0.3%
  • South Sudan: Christianity 60.5%, traditional African religions 32.9%, Muslim 6.2%
  • Trinidad and Tobago: Roman Catholic 26%, Hindu 22.5%, Anglican 7.8%, Baptist 7.2%, Pentecostal 6.8%, Muslim 5.8%, Seventh Day Adventist 4%, other Christian 5.8%, other 10.8%, unspecified 1.4%, none 1.9%
  • Tuvalu: Church of Tuvalu (Congregationalist) 97%, Seventh-Day Adventist 1.4%, Baha’i 1%, other 0.6%
  • Uganda: Roman Catholic 41.9%, Protestant 42% (Anglican 35.9%, Pentecostal 4.6%, Seventh Day Adventist 1.5%), Muslim 12.1%, other 3.1%, none 0.9%
  • Vanuatu: Presbyterian 31.4%, Anglican 13.4%, Roman Catholic 13.1%, Seventh-Day Adventist 10.8%, other Christian 13.8%, indigenous beliefs 5.6% (including Jon Frum cargo cult), other 9.6%, none 1%, unspecified 1.3% (1999 Census)

The countries that abstained from the vote were all majority Christian countries. A handful of countries had populations with more than 5% Muslims, including Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Malawi, Philippines, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uganda. Only Bosnia and Herzegovina had a Muslim population of over 25%.

Meanwhile, there were 128 countries that voted against the United States and Israel (for the UNGA resolution). Almost all of the 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) voted against the US, with the exceptions of Benin, Cameroon and Togo. Four of the five countries with OIC Observer status also voted against the US.

Why did Muslim countries vote against the United States and Israel, while Christian countries were much more likely to vote for Jerusalem? Some possibilities:

  • Muslim antisemitism: The Arab and Muslim world is much more antisemitic  (74%) than the Christian world according to various polls by the Anti Defamation League. It found that almost every Palestinian Arab was an anti-Semite, and that antisemitism was much less prevalent in the Americas (19%) and among Christians in western Europe (Muslims were 3-5 times more anti-Semitic). Voting against the Jewish state is basically de rigueur in Islamic societies.
  • Jewish and Christian history in Jerusalem: Muslim nations have been lobbying the United Nations for the past several years that Jews are recent colonialist with no history in the holy land and that the Jewish Temples never existed in Jerusalem. Palestinian Arabs have further inflamed Christian ire by claiming that Jesus was not a Jew but a Palestinian Arab. This is a direct affront to billions of Christians that believe in both the Old and New Testaments.
  • Israel’s Freedom of religion. Christians appreciate the freedom of religion afforded by Israel. They note that the Israeli government helped the Mormons build their church in Jerusalem, allow the Baha’i church to thrive in Haifa, and welcome pilgrims from around the world. They note that the surrounding Arab and Muslim countries have no such freedoms and tolerance. Where Muslim fanatics behead non-believers, and Arab and Muslim governments have laws against converting from Islam, Israel is an island of religious pluralism and freedom.
  • Christians in Jerusalem under Arabs and Jews: Christians note that when the Arabs ruled Jerusalem from 1949 to 1967, the Christian population dropped in half, but has seen a modest growth since Israel reunified the city in 1967. That is quite a comparison to Bethlehem, where the Christian population which stood at roughly 40% in December 1995 when Israel handed control to the Palestinian Authority, is now almost completely gone.
  • Access and Maintenance of Holy Sites: Christian pilgrims wander the streets of Jerusalem, Nazareth and the entirety of Israel every day of the year, and witness Jews and Muslims similarly accessing their holy places. But they remember clearly how Palestinian Arabs ransacked the Jewish holy site of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus (Shechem) in October 2000 and attempted to convert it into a mosque, and how the Arabs forbade Jews from visiting the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs in Hebron and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem when they held control from 1949 to 1967.

The situation in Israel is not unique. Christians have witnessed the horror that has befallen minorities like the Yazidis who have been hunted by Islamic jihadists. They see the turmoil and terror in the Islamic countries of Syria and Yemen. And they note the Christian persecution in the world is almost exclusively in Muslim majority countries.


ADL’s map of antisemitism

The Christians appreciate Israel’s control of Jerusalem. Whether it is because of their faith, understanding of history, appreciation of tolerance, desire for the freedom of religious practice, or the availability to live and access holy sites, Christians see holy sites and cities flourish under Israeli sovereignty and control. Unfortunately, the opposite is found in Arab and Muslim countries.

The Muslim nations seek complete authority and control. The notion of Jewish or Christians rights in their holy city of Jerusalem is irrelevant, and undermines the supremacy of Islam.


Various Pilgrims in the Old City of Jerusalem
(photos: First.One.Through)

As the world becomes less reliant on oil from the Arab world, one can expect more Christian countries to actively support Israel’s Jerusalem on the world stage.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Christian Persecution in the Middle East, not in Israel

Israel, the Liberal Country of the Middle East

Murderous Governments of the Middle East

Every Picture Tells a Story: No Christians Targeted

The United Nations and Holy Sites in the Holy Land

The Arguments over Jerusalem

First.One.through videos:

BDS Movement and Christian Persecution (Hovhaness)

I hate Israel – Christian Persecution

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis