While Lying About Israel, Democrats Demand Nothing of Palestinians

Thirty Democratic politicians under the Obama and Clinton administrations sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee on May 4, 2020. The letter began by completely misleading its audience which led directly into slandering Israel and absolving Arabs of any responsibility.

The letter stated

“Past party platforms have rightly stated a commitment to Israel’s security and included condemnations of threats and actions against our ally, in addition to embracing a two-state outcome. Those platforms have, however, also been nearly silent on the rights of Palestinians, on Israeli actions that undermine those rights and the prospects for a two-state solution, and on the need for security for both peoples.”

The phrase “embracing a “two-state solution” completely misleads a reader to believing that the Democratic party platform as recently as 2008 (pre-Obama) supported the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative (1967 “borders”; Arab capital in “East Jerusalem,” repatriation of “refugees”). IT DID NOT. It envisioned a completely different kind of two-state outcome.

  • Borders: The 2008 DNC platform stated ““All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” Today, Democrats talk about the “1967 borders” as the natural orientation of the two-states, but that was not their historic vision because those “armistice lines of 1949” were never designed by the parties at that time or after to become borders.
  • Jerusalem: The DNC was clear in 2008 that  “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.” But the Democrats today are pushing for Israel to hand over half of its capital including the holiest sites for Judaism.

“Israeli actions” of living beyond the armistice lines including in eastern Jerusalem was something Democrats always supported until the Obama administration changed the party platform. These Obama employees who crafted the letter claim that Jews living freely somehow “undermines rights” of Palestinians. It does nothing of the sort.

The 2008 platform continued that the United States should isolate Hamas (Jimmy Carter still loves the terrorist group) and added that all “refugees” would be settled in a new Palestinian state, not in Israel. Under Obama, the statements were removed.

In 2012 and 2016, the Democratic platform became increasing less supportive and increasingly harsh in its treatment of Israel and has demanded less and less of the Palestinians.

Consider a simple desire from 2008: “a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel.” The new letter makes no requirement of Palestinians living in peace. Instead, it just holds up Palestinian rights:

“The 2020 platform should expressly state a commitment to a resolution of the conflict that ensures both Israel’s security and future as a Jewish and democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens, as well as Palestinian rights, including self-determination, security and freedom. It should include clear opposition to ongoing occupation, settlement expansion and any form of unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank as well as clear opposition to violence, terrorism and incitement from all sides.”

Note that these Democrats seek an Israel that is “democratic with equal rights for all its citizens,” but says nothing about a new state of Palestine and demands nothing.

  • No demand to abolish the Palestinian law which calls for the death sentence for any Arab selling land to a Jew
  • No call for Palestine to be a democracy and move away from sharia law
  • No call for allowing Jews to live throughout the land
  • No call for allowing Jews to pray at their holy sites
  • No call for striking the Palestinian law which allows for men to get a light sentence for honor killings of women in their families

Past party platforms never used the word “occupation” as Democrats once understood that international law for the past 100 years encouraged Jews to live throughout historic Palestine, understood that the 1949 Armistice lines were arbitrary and not meant to be a border, and that Israel retook the “West Bank” in a defensive battle. It was only under the watch of these same thirty Democrats who blessed the Arab demand for a Jew-free state and therefore enabled UN Security Resolution 2334 (2016) declaring Jews living peacefully in their ancient holy land as illegal. THEY MADE a basic human right illegal, and now chastise Israel for ignoring their antisemitic actions. #ResistUN

Not only are Democrats standing tall by the horrific Obama decision at the UN, but are pushing forward with attacking Israel and asking nothing of the Palestinians: a sharia-inspired Jew-free state for Palestinians and a state with full equality and no preferences for Jews in Israel which should absorb millions of additional Arabs. It’s a two state solution based on 1.5 states for Arabs and 0.5 of a state for Israel.

Ben Rhodes, Former Deputy National Security Adviser in Obama administration

The letter penned by Obama’s politicians which argued for “a commitment to security, democracy, and human rights,” failed to seek democracy for Palestinians and human rights for Israeli Jews. It demonstrates that Israel is not becoming a wedge issue for American politicians but a symbol of Democrats abandoning the western world. Israel is just the first casualty of the their headlong embrace of non-Democratic antisemitic norms found in countries around the globe.


Related First One Through articles:

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

The Insidious Jihad in America

The United States Should NOT be a Neutral Mediator in the Arab-Israel Conflict

The Joy of Lecturing Jews

Trump Reverses the Carter and Obama Anti-Israel UN Resolutions

The Obama Administration Continues to Abandon Israel in Fighting Terror

J Street: Home for Pro-Palestinian, Pro-Peace Americans

Obama’s “Palestinian Land”

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

Obama supports Anti-Semitic Palestinian Agenda of Jew-Free State

Related First One Through video:

The “1967 Borders” (music by The Kinks)

Rep. Keith Ellison Refuses to Condemn UN Resolution Aganist Israel

The Obama Administration let a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel (Res 2334) pass in December 2016 to the anger of many Americans.  The US Congress took it upon itself on January 5, 2017, to condemn the UN action as a bipartisan effort, voting to condemn it by a margin of 342 to 80 (with 4 people voting Present and 7 abstentions). A total of 233 Republicans and 109 Democrats stood by the US’s ally in a bill entitled “Objecting to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for other purposes.” Of the 80 people voting against the measure, 76 were Democrats to only 4 Republicans.

Before the vote, two leading Republicans, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce (CA-39) released the following statement:

“This Administration has lost all credibility when it comes to Israel. The Administration’s stunt at the UN hurt our ally Israel and made peace in the region even more difficult to achieve. This Thursday, the House will not abstain from its responsibility and will vote on a bipartisan resolution reaffirming our longstanding policy in the region and support of Israel.

While Republicans voted to condemn the UN vote by a margin of 233-to-4, the Democrats barely achieved a majority of consensus, voting 109-to-76, with 8 others not voting at all.

Rep. Keith Ellison, who is running to be the new chair of the Democratic National Committee (with the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders) was one of those Democrats that decided to vote against the effort to condemn the UN censure of Israel.

keith-ellison-end-the-occupation-podium

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)

Ellison’s action was not a surprise to many.

Ellison was one of the 50 House Democrats to boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in 2015. A big Democratic supporter, Haim Saban said recently that Ellison “is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual.” But leading Jewish Democrats in the Senate like Charles Schumer and Bernie Sanders have still rallied to Ellison’s defense and continue to support his candidacy.

If this is how Ellison votes when Americans are focused on him and his bona fides, how will he treat Israel in the future? Will he continue to turn Democrats against Israel? Will he support more actions at the United Nations to condemn the leading democracy of the entire Middle East?

If Ellison becomes the new chair of the DNC, it will be the final straw for this lifelong Democrat.


Related First.One.Through articles:

International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu

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

Bernie Sanders is the Worst U.S. Presidential Candidate for Israel Ever

Sanders Accuses Israel of Deliberately Killing Palestinians

Missing Netanyahu’s Speech: Those not Listening and Those Not Speaking

The Democrats’ Slide on Israel

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

Michael Bloomberg Talks to America about Marrying a Prostitute

A satire?

On July 27, 2016, America witnessed an unusual piece of political theater.  It was not that a member of a competing political party addressed a convention.  It was the thrust of the argument made on the national stage by a respected politician that there’s nothing wrong with marrying a prostitute.

Let me say at the outset that I have long believed that prostitution should be legalized.  How do our laws state that pornography and massages are legal but prostitution is not?  Why do we allow people to marry for money? Why do women’s rights groups fight for women to be able to control their bodies when it comes to abortion, but ignore the call when it comes to call girls?  Lastly, nothing would better protect women in the profession than legalizing the act.

But put all of that to the side.  I’m talking about selling your vote.  About paying for favors.  About quid (the British know it means money) pro quo. About Hillary Clinton.

hillary and bloomberg

Michael Bloomberg, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
(Photographer: Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

The former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg addressed the Democratic National Convention in July to appeal to those who dislike both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  His reasoning for backing Hillary Clinton for president was… well, you read it:

I know what it’s like to have neither party fully represent my views or values. Too many Republicans wrongly blame immigrants for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on climate change and gun violence. Meanwhile, many Democrats wrongly blame the private sector for our problems, and they stand in the way of action on education reform and deficit reduction.

There are times when I disagree with Hillary. But whatever our disagreements may be, I’ve come here to say: We must put them aside for the good of our country. And we must unite around the candidate who can defeat a dangerous demagogue.”

In other words, she’s far from ideal, but the alternative is unacceptable.  She may have a bad track record, but at least she’s experienced.  You may not love her, but she’ll get the job done.

Sort of like marrying a prostitute.

Of course, you can hold out and wait to marry for love, but the wedding is scheduled for November 8.  The Bachelor has two finalists (actually three, including Libertarian Gary Johnson that the press never discusses).  Will you marry the person who skates on the edge of the law, has spent a lifetime in her craft, and works the angles to line her pockets, that you severely dislike?  Or the novice whose voice agitates you, who’s so new to the street that he doesn’t even know how all of the equipment works?

Bloomberg declared that this election was not about love, but getting the job done.  By a professional with a rate card.

Hillary got paid huge fees for speaking to Wall Street.  Fine.  Speaking fees are legal.  Pay-for-play is the Democrats way.

Look at the recent ransom payment that the Obama Administration made to Iran to release hostages.  The administration may say it doesn’t negotiate with terrorists – except for all of the times that it does.  And who’s worse off?  The Americans are free, and all we had to do was pay blackmail money. (Hey, the terrorism the Iranians will fund will likely be against Israel and Europe, so America should be OK, so chill.)

And just like the perfected sales pitch “But wait! There’s more!”

Search the leaked DNC emails and review the long laundry list of payoffs that Democrats made for influence.  So what?  It’s an ATM Democracy.

The farce of this election is that Trump was one of Clinton’s johns.  He paid in. He knows she’s worth it. Why don’t you get that?

A prostitute and a john walk into an election cycle…and the former mayor of New York made it clear that you back the service-provider.

Hooray!

It was long past time that someone stood on a national stage and said it’s time to decriminalize prostitution.  Thank you Michael Bloomberg.  You made your point clearly: There’s no love to be found in this election, so ignore your heart.  Pay for the Pro.  At least you can be sure you’ll get what you ordered.

And if you don’t have money, see if Obama can get a pallet of bills over to your house before he leaves office.  The Iranians say he’s a pro too.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Liar, Liar! Hillary’s Pant Suit’s on Fire!

Hillary’s Transparency

ObamaCar to Address Garage Inequality

The Joys of Iranian Pistachios and Caviar

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

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis