As Democrats Become More Liberal And Anti-Israel, DMFI Sticks Fingers In The Dike

The Democratic Party has been becoming more liberal and anti-Israel in its views over the past several years. It has left many pro-Israel Democrats feeling lost in their party but unwilling to cross party lines, so they are banding together in a last ditch effort to save the soul of the party.

Democrats Becoming More Liberal

The polarization of America’s parties has been happening for decades. According to Pew Research polls, the Democratic Party in 2000 had roughly 6% and 21% of its members being very liberal and liberal, respectively, a total of 27%, with a similar total of 23% being conservative and very conservative (a net difference of 4%). By 2012, the very liberal wing hit 10% with other liberals accounting for 27%, a 37% total, while the conservatives in the party shrunk to 20% (a net difference of 17%). By 2019, liberals accounted for as much of half the party, 47%, while conservatives shrunk to 14% (a 33% spread).

Pew refined its description of Democrats into seven categories in 2021. The Progressive Left, Outside Left and Establishment Liberals accounted for 12%, 16% and 23%, respectively, a total of 51% of the party. The moderates, which were called Democratic Mainstays and Stressed Sideliners accounted for 28% and 13%, a 41% total. People on the right accounted for less than 8% of the party.

The spread between left and right among Democrats grew from 4% in 2000 to 43% in 2021.

The Democratic Party had virtually the same number of liberals and conservatives in 2000. In 2021, liberals accounted for a majority, while conservatives had shrunken to a mere 8 percent.

Educated White people led this polarization of the party. White extremism jumped from 30% to 55% between 2020 and 2019, while Hispanics and Blacks moved from 25% each to 37% and 29% in 2019, respectively. The greater the level of education, the more liberal one became, by an expanding basis more recently.

Liberals Becoming More Anti-Israel

American liberals have become increasingly hostile to the Jewish State.

According to a July 2022 Pew poll, 62% of liberals have an unfavorable opinion of Israel. That is in sharp contrast to 75% of conservatives who have a favorable opinion of Israel. The difference principally comes from young people, where 56% of those aged 18-19 had negative feelings towards Israel while 69% of American Jews over 65 years old had positive views of Israel.

In a related dynamic, Reform Jews are less connected to Israel and more liberal. A May 2021 Pew poll found that 87% of Orthodox Jews believe that God gave the land of Israel to Jews, while only 26% of Reform Jews felt the same. By way of comparison, 70% of White Evangelicals believe God gave the land to Jews. White Evangelicals were also the most likely to view the government of Israel favorably and Palestinian leadership unfavorably. Atheists were most likely to view the Israeli government unfavorably and Palestinians favorably.

Pro-Israel Democrats and Orthodox Liberals In A Bind

The shifting sands have left many people within the party feeling very uncomfortable. Religious Jews and pro-Israel Jews of all denominations feel increasingly marginalized and in strong disagreement with the direction of the Democratic party as it relates to Israel.

Left-wing groups like J Street are actively pushing anti-Israel legislation and promoting anti-Israel candidates for Congress. They are mis-educating progressives that Israel is a horrible country that persecutes Arabs, and that the United States should take aggressive measures against the only Jewish State. They have actively and successfully worked to destroy the bipartisan support that Israel enjoyed for decades.

While the situation has forced some people to leave the Democrats to become Independents or Republicans, many have sought to stay and fight the anti-Zionist tide.

Democratic Majority For Israel (DMFI)

DMFI was started by a political strategist named Mark Mellman. He worked with many Democrats on their campaigns including Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). He was joined by other people who worked inside the Democratic party for years, and others who worked for AIPAC, the bipartisan pro-Israel group.

DMFI is attempting to be what J Street claims to be – an actual pro-Israel voice within the Democratic Party. It is working with moderate and progressive Democrats to keep and get them elected, while educating them about the thriving liberal Jewish State.

The new organization is fighting a battle on two fronts.

Its principal opponent is the Republican Jewish Coalition which helps elect pro-Israel Republicans. It’s more immediate threat – and the reason it came into existence – is the far-left pro-Palestinian group J Street.

Some of the most ferocious political battles today are being fought in primaries, not November elections. The far-left wing group Justice Democrats, as well as Democratic Socialists of America are putting significant resources to get anti-Zionist socialists into office. J Street has locked arms with these groups on many occasions, and provides a fig leaf cover for the candidates’ and DSA’s anti-Semitism.

Consider the congressional race in Texas where moderate Democrat Henry Cuellar (one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Party according to govtracks), was targeted by Justice Democrats in the 2020 and 2022 primaries. They put up Jessica Cisneros, a socialist, to combat the moderate pro-Israel Cuellar. J Street poured money to back Cisneros, even though Cisneros had made zero comments and had no track record about Israel. J Street simply locked arms with the most extreme elements of the party, regardless of their views on Israel, despite a tagline which claims that they are “pro-Israel.”

In sharp contrast, DMFI came out strongly for Cuellar. The group posted about Cuellar’s victory: “The race was a test of the political influence of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and the power of Justice Democrats, a progressive group supporting candidates who challenged moderate incumbent Democrats. Cisneros was also backed by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), as well as J Street PAC. Cuellar, a moderate Democrat, was backed by his party’s establishment and pro-Israel groups including Democratic Majority for Israel and Pro Israel America.

It is remarkable – and scary – that in addition to a two-party Democrat-Republican dynamic that most of America witnesses, there is a battle inside the Democratic Party between moderates/ DMFI and the alt-left/ Justice Democrats/ J Street wing. Even scarier, the trend lines are now favoring the extremist and anti-Zionist wing, a horrible situation for both the United States and Israel.

Related articles:

Snapshot Of J Street’s Friends and Foes

Islamic and Alt-Left Extremists Declare that Normalization With Zionists Is Against Sharia Law

Democrats Give Platforms to Their Extremists

First the Attackers Were Radical Islamic Extremists

‘Critical Race Theory’ in Palestinian Schools Calls For The Murder of Israeli Jews

‘Imagine’ No Wokeness

Imagine there are no terrorists
It’s easy if you try
No TSA before us
Above us, only safe skies

Imagine all the people
Not wasting their whole day
Ah

Imagine there are no rioters
It isn’t hard to do
No torching stores or cars
And no shoplifters too

Imagine ‘Funding the Police’
Men and Women in blue
Security for everyone
Even the beleaguered Jews

Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
And these ideas are so dumb
I hope some day you’ll join us
And we can all live in freedom

Imagine no universalism
An inversion of kind
No diktats of thought
A freedom of the mind

Imagine no Critical Race Theory
Taught in the schools
No damnation of White people
As evil and fools

Imagine all the people
Thinking for themselves
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
For basic life choices
Liberty to act as one desires
And a platform for all voices

Imagine the end of socialism
Which yielded poverty and death
A system of destruction
Ending human and economic breath

Imagine all the people
Living a full life
Ah

Imagine not condemning two-parent households
It isn’t hard to do
Not slamming math as ‘racist’
And ‘work ethic’ too

Imagine all the people
Enjoying a wonderful life
Ah

Imagine respecting borders
You teach it to a child
Not giving Iran nuclear weapons
Terrorists gone wild

Imagine all the people
Living without fear
You

You may say I’m a dreamer
And this poem is a peculiar medium
To show another way of living
In a land instilled with freedom

I Understand Why the Caged Jew Sighs

“Protocols of the Elders of Zion – The Musical”

Abortion, “Settlements” and Judeo-Christian Communities of Faith

There are very few subject matters that excite people to such a degree that they become passionate even when there is no personal stake in the matter. The curious thing about two of them – abortion and the “settlements” – is that the left and right are similarly inconsistent about the rights of the self and those of the impacted.

Abortion

The left-wing considers abortion a personal matter for the mother. They consider the impacted party – the fetus – to have no rights, even up to the point of birth. Their “pro-choice” position argues that if you don’t like abortions, then don’t have one. Each person can decide on their own what works best for their circumstance. Some pro-choice people have even suggested that men should have zero say in the entire abortion discussion.

The right-wing that is “pro-life” doesn’t dismiss that women are a factor in the topic, however, they feel that the fetus also has rights. Some people in this camp feel that abortions are a form of legalized murder of innocent babies. The moves taken by some states like New York which have removed any penalties or restrictions for an abortion up until the moment of birth are viewed as sickening. The idea that men should have no say in laws regarding infanticide are considered outrageous and repugnant.

“Settlements”

The left-wing has tacked to a different course when it comes to Israeli Jews living over the 1949 Armistice Lines between Israel and TransJordan. They feel that the rights of Jews to live in the area commonly called the “West Bank” is wrong as it impacts Palestinian (formerly Jordanian) Arabs who do not want them living there in their call for a Jew-free country. Rather than follow their own advice on abortion – if you don’t like it, don’t do it – they have attempted to stop others (Jews specifically) from living in “settlements.”

The right-wing has similarly taken the inverted path on Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria. They stand fully behind the rights of Jews to live where they want, especially in the Jewish holy land. The fact that Palestinian Arabs don’t like it is irrelevant. The impacted party must learn to live with the actions of people who use their agency to control their lives.

Changed Laws

The see-saw between right and left has pulled laws in different directions over the decades.

Abortion was illegal throughout the United States until 1973. The law continues to be challenged by different states which expand upon the rights of women (like New York described above) or for the rights of the unborn, as in Texas and Mississippi.

International law not only allowed but encouraged Jews to live throughout historic Palestine. The 1920 San Remo Agreement and the 1922 Mandate of Palestine not only called for Jews to live everywhere in the land, but specifically prohibited anyone from being banned from living in any part of the land (Article 15) – even in what became TransJordan (Article 25) – because of their religion. The United Nations reversed that in 2016 with the passage of UNSC 2334 which made it illegal for Jews to live over the 1949 Armistice Lines.

Abortion rights advocates demand that abortion rights are human rights and fight the laws viewed as discriminatory and will push for access even if laws are passed which they view as inherently misogynistic. Settlement activists similarly view UNSC 2334 and various calls to ban Jews from living somewhere as deeply anti-Semitic. They are fighting against the laws and attempts to boycott Jews who live in the Israeli territory of Area C.

The Distant Passion

The Deciding Party with Agency

There are nearly 4 billion women on the planet, so it stands to reason that there are many people who feel a vested interest in abortion rights. A woman in Ireland may look at the status of abortion in Texas and know that the decisions there have no immediate direct impact on her. However, she may feel both a connection with the women of Texas, and believe that the trend line in one part of the world may ultimately impact the situation for her thousands of miles away.

So it is with Jewish settlements. While there are a paltry few million Jews, there are hundreds of millions of Christian Zionists and others excited to see the rebirth of the Jewish State and want to ensure its success as they believe it confirms their faith. They stand amazed at the thriving democracy and technology marvel that Jews have built in the middle of the illiberal Middle East and are confident that God is blessing the Jewish people and will also bless those who bless the Jewish people.

The reality is that everyone – not just those with a vested interest – would likely be fine with abortions and settlements if there were no impacted party. The tension exists because there are others in the mix, and that dynamic is what ignites the passions.

Israeli buildings in the Judean Desert in Area C

The Impacted Party

In the abortion debate, many religious people believe that life begins at conception. Even those less religious intuitively understand that there is something unique about a fetus, especially in the third trimester, when an abortion cannot be equated with a woman getting a tattoo or body piercings. The pro-life community believes that the rights of the unborn – at some point during pregnancy – are as great as the rights of the mother.

The right and left do not side with the party with agency or the impacted party but whom they prioritize. The right sides with Jews and the unborn while the left tilts towards women and Arabs.

The split can perhaps be best summarized by the religious Judeo-Christian community versus the secular and Muslim community. The religious Judeo-Christian community generally believes that a fetus is more than a mass of cells and has inherent human dignity. They similarly attempt to live lives infused with the values of the Bible, and believe that the land of Israel is not simply holy land as it is to other faiths, but a uniquely Jewish Promised Land. The secular world believes neither, and wants to keep the beliefs of others out of their lives and politics.

The pro-life and pro-Zionist factions have tremendous overlap, not just in conservative politics but in the religious Judeo-Christian communities. The pro-abortion and pro-Palestinian groups similarly overlap in their anti-Judeo-Christian worldview, which they have attempted to characterize as a “White Patriarchy,” as a method of demonizing those alternative views.

Ongoing debates on abortions, settlements and a variety of issues will feature a slew of creative invectives, but at the core is the battle between the devoutly secular and the Judeo-Christian communities of faith around the world.

Related articles:

Prostitution and the Hijab

The Noose and the Nipple

When Power Talks the Truth

89 Marginal New Yorkers

The State of New York will lose one congressional seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, due to coming up 89 persons shy of Minnesota, which will take the lost seat. Some people have blamed the result on an undercount of actual New Yorkers due to the animus between New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio for not prioritizing the census.

They should consider another reason: New Yorkers who have felt increasingly marginalized by the strong leftward lurch of the Empire State.

Politics:
Alt-Left in Congress and New York State Assembly

The 2018 elections saw the rise of “the squad” in Congress, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York City. Their success, and that of Democratic Socialists like Senator Bernie Sanders, have moved fringe ideas into the mainstream and is appalling to many. Thousands of lifetime Democrats left the Democratic Party as a result, especially after the head of the Democratic National Committee said that the far-left was “the future of our party.

Similarly, over the past two election cycles, the New York State assembly moved from tackling issues in a bi-partisan manner to one which has a veto-proof super-majority of Democrats who intend on pushing a far-left agenda.

Why register for the census if it just pushes a thumb down on a scale for a political regime which does not represent your political views?

Religion:
The Marginal Jewish Minority

Despite Jews being three times more likely to be attacked in a hate crime that an average Black person, society has uttered few words of comfort for the Jewish community while the Black Lives Matter anthem is painted on city streets and played at sporting events. NYC Mayor de Blasio refused to acknowledge repeated Black anti-Semitic attacks while New York Governor Cuomo decried “powerful” Jews. New York City’s liberal politicians even fought against providing security guards to Jewish schools because they thought the schools had an anti-gay agenda.

Liberals did the math and realized that some sizable minorities like Blacks could help get them elected, while small marginal groups like Jews barely registered as a decently sized constituency.

Why register for the census if it empowers a regime which aggressively distains you?

Media:
Anti-White, Male, Cisgender, Straight, Banker, Zionist

The New York Times echoes the voices of the far-left and encourages them with highly biased and false narratives.

The media is pushing stories that White people are inherently racist and men have caused all of the problems in the world. Bankers are crooks who steal money and opportunity from the poor, and Zionists are thieves who steal land from Arabs. If only women were in power, there would be no coronavirus and peace in the world…

The mainstream media is attempting to brainwash society with their new “truths” of secular wokeness, that people are good and bad based on inherent characteristics, not by actions.

Why follow the media calls to register for the census to aggravate the lies?


I am sure that the census did not properly count all New Yorkers. As many of us watched politicians and census takers aggressively search for non-citizens to increase the power of the left, we framed our census forms and mounted them on the wall as mementoes of when we felt we counted.


Related First One Through articles:

Victims of Preference

Shadow-Banned Over The Election

The NY Times ‘More Confrontational Approach’

Socialists Employ Arabs’ Four Step Battle Plan

Vote Harvesting

Progressives Judge Past American Actions and Ignore Today’s Foreign Culture

The Cusp of Progressive Legal Extortion

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Whose Hate is on the Ballot

There are many people who simply cannot understand how anyone could vote for Donald Trump. The accusations of his racism, misogyny and sowing hatred in the country overwhelm so many that they cannot pause to consider that many people consider many of Trump’s actions to be excellent and preferred to what Joe Biden might do as president. People who prioritize a strong economy built on capitalism and a strong foreign policy in rewarding allies over enemies might be willing to ignore Trump’s vile statements.

It is much the same of people who vote for Ilhan Omar for congress despite her repeated use of anti-Semitic tropes. Some constituents love her progressive socialist values and give a pass to her comments.

A popular lawn sign that “Hate has no home here” dots much of suburbia but the reality is that many liberals and conservatives are willing to overlook the hatred. Liberals might rant about Trump but will defend Omar, while conservative people will do the reverse. The placards really need to add the word “SOME” before “HATE”.

More accurate lawn sign

Pew Research did a poll in August 2020 about the top issues for voters. Trump voters placed the economy, violent crime, immigration, gun policy and foreign policy as their top five issues. Biden voters placed healthcare, the coronavirus, race and ethnic inequality, the economy and climate change as their biggest issues. The two different lists point to an America that doesn’t simply have different policy preferences on certain matters (like capitalism over socialism) but completely different priorities.

Yet to read social media leads one to believe that hate itself is on the ballot. That a vote for the likes of Trump or Omar is a tacit approval of inciting division in these envisioned “United” States.

Arguably, the polls and social media should be read together and not as distinct data points. Trump voters consider fellow citizens that ignore the economy, violent crime and their most important issues as undermining America, much like Biden supporters view people who do not prioritize healthcare, the coronavirus and racial inequality as destroying society.

It is worth considering whether the hate that’s on the ballot in 2020 really belongs to the politicians or the convictions of our fellow Americans.


Related First One Through articles:

A Country Divided

Vote Purple

The Mason-Dixon Plaid

Progressives Judge Past American Actions and Ignore Today’s Foreign Culture

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Naked Democracy 2

The 2016 U.S. presidential election was a bizarre and emotionally-charged affair. Not only did two highly disliked politicians face each other but the Republican and Democratic parties used very different paths to electing their ultimate candidate. That history set the course for the subsequent elections which we are seeing played out in 2020.

The Republican establishment and media scorned Donald Trump. Not only did he spend most of his life as a Democrat and outside of politics, but his personality and temperament accosted the party’s sensibilities. Sen. Ted Cruz called Trump a “pathological liar,” Sen. Marco Rubio said he was a “con artist” and Sen. Lindsay Graham said Trump hasn’t “displayed the judgment and temperament to serve as Commander in Chief.” 

The list went on and on.

The media acted much the same with conservative publications refusing to endorse Trump during the primaries, hoping someone would save the election and the Republican party.

Cover of the Conservative Magazine National Review

Republicans ignored their leaders and nominated someone from the outside of their party and politics who ultimately secured both the nomination and the presidency.

Democrats came close to electing an outsider as well.

The incredible run of Sen. Bernie Sanders to almost win the Democratic nomination mirrored the rise of Donald Trump in the Republican primaries. The Vermont Independent rarely caucused with Democrats during his time in the Senate and had virtually no impact on passing legislation over his entire tenure. However, he attracted the attention of the far-left public who rallied to his cause and nearly secured his position at the top of the ticket. He did so without the help of the Democratic machine and press which heavily favored Hillary Clinton.

The long-time political insider’s loss to a brash novice like Trump was too much for the left-wing to bear and they decided to remake the Democratic Party much the way Trump  had done to the GOP.

A new far left-wing group called the Justice Democrats formed and took aim at moderate Democrats in primaries in an effort to shift the party far to the left. It secured victories in 2018 with Democratic-Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib getting into congress. In 2020, they succeeded again with wins including Jamaal Bowman defeating long-time Democratic congressman Eliot Engel as well as other victories.

By all accounts, the insurgents would never have found a home inside the established Democratic Party in the past, and would have run on the Green Party or Working Family Party tickets. But the treatment of Sanders in 2016 and ultimate defeat of Hillary Clinton made them take up arms against the Democratic machine and are now effectively reshaping the party in their extremist image. The establishment is cow-towing to the fringe with its leaders saying that AOC is the “future of the party” and backing Ilhan Omar’s reelection.

Meanwhile the Republicans are not so sure that winning is everything and are contemplating their current situation of letting their party get hijacked by an outsider.

Many Republicans in the media and politics initially chose to look away from Trump’s statements in 2016 and back the new president in the hope of influencing Trump’s policies and securing gains for their constituents. But four years later many cannot look away from Trump’s acerbic personality. Sen. Mitt Romney and former-Secretary of State Collin Powell have said they will not support Trump’s re-election and former Ohio Republican governor and congressman John Kasich has accepted an invitation to speak at the Democratic National Convention against Trump.

In a curious situation, the loser is seeking to emulate the winner while the winner is debating the cost of the win.

A two-party democracy works best when the choice before voters is center-right versus center-left. Should society seek to have a voice for radicals, a parliamentary system would be most efficient in which those sentiments would be heard, but in whispers at the edges. But America is moving in a dangerous direction with its two-party system tacking to the fringes, destroying moderate politicians and the mainstream media which has pivoted in kind.


Related First One Through articles:

The U.S. is Stealing Real Choices from the Voters

Libertarian Validation and Absolution

I Love 5-to-4

In The Margins

“Coastal Liberal Latte-sipping Politically-correct Out-of-touch Folks.”

Liberal’s Protest Bubble Harms Democracy

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Mason-Dixon Plaid

The Mason-Dixon Line was known as the demarcation between the northern states and the southern states in the US Civil War. The line clearly separated those states in which slavery was prohibited (the Union north of the line) and the slave states (the Confederacy south of the line).

The Civil War waged from 1861 to 1865 and was the bloodiest war in American history with 618,000 killed, more than all other U.S. wars combined (WWII and WWI had 405,000 and 116,000 fatalities, respectively). The death total was roughly 2 per cent of the country, equivalent to over 6 million people today. It is remarkable to think about the millions who fought to preserve (and counter) a preferred form of government, rather than let the country divide seamlessly.

It is difficult to imagine how the Civil War would have played out if the warring parties were not delineated by the neat Mason-Dixon line but a patchwork of alternating states. Would the war have ended faster and with fewer deaths if a few surrounding states ganged up on a common enemy in the middle? Or would the destruction have been far longer and worse for each side with alternating gains and losses on multiple fronts? Imagine if the dynamics were even narrower, with alternating cities and neighborhoods which pit neighbor against fellow neighbor.

A civil war between standing armies would be nearly impossible in such configuration. It would more likely resemble a series of micro-battles in which one square of the plaid pattern attacked another rectangle. A raging riot would break in part of one city and a pogrom in another. Lawlessness would prevail as police forces fragmented between the sides.

It is doubtful such war could conclude with long-term stability and peace. The tensions would likely come to the fore every so often, much like the hundred-year battle between the Arabs and Jews in Israel. Competing visions for a single land is unsustainable as simmering feuds between neighbors and clans never dissipate as people mourn for the loss of family, friends and illusion that the past can be recreated.

The United States is an increasingly polarized society. Radical leftists are taking over the Democratic Party while the Republican Party disembowels itself under President Trump. The alt-left and alt-right visions for America are radically different as the country that once touted itself as the home of the middle class has jettisoned the political moderates. While the deep blue is mostly on the coasts and deep red is predominantly in the middle of the country, the depth of colors offends every non-zealot in every corner.

At this same moment in time, the pandemic has introduced a mindset that one’s neighbors can literally kill them. The notion of “give me liberty (to not wear a mask) or give me death” is being shouted at the man on the street, not a monarch thousands of miles away. The stresses of financial and physical health against a backdrop demanding purity of thought at the risk of losing one’s job have pushed people to the edge.

The Mason-Dixon Plaid has crisscrossed the country amid a pandemic setting the stage for a long and brutal battle pitting neighbor against neighbor. It is being launched with ostracizations and evictions, boycotts and theft, and weapons are being drawn. This civil war will not end when the pandemic eases, but with a turn towards the center where neighbors can speak and listen to jointly compromise on a shared vision for the land.


Related First One Through articles:

A Country Divided

The Personalisation of War

Socialists Employ Arabs’ Four Step Battle Plan

I Love 5-to-4

Americans Welcome the Philosophy of ISIS

Mike Bloomberg, Where #NeverTrump Meets #NeverBernie

American Hate: The Right Targets Foreigners, The Left Targets Americans

Naked Democracy

Eyes Wide Shut

Magnifying the Margins, and the Rise of the Independents

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

Between Right-Wing and Left-Wing Antisemitism

The world has always had people with a wide variety of opinions, and indeed, a wide variety of hatreds. Antisemitism, the oldest of human hatreds, is no different, and has taken on new forms in modern times.

Right-Wing Antisemitism

For thousands of years, Jews were persecuted as “the Other.” They were viewed suspiciously as foreigners by lay-people and demonized for not believing in the preferred prophets by religious leaders. Some countries simply took advantage of the small, weak status of Jews, and engaged in “practical antisemitism” for financial reasons – either to seize their property or to get out of debt which was owed to Jews.

The historic antisemitism was shepherded by popes and kings, local townspeople and crusaders. The manifestation of the hatred was murder and expulsion.

The slaughter of Jews was common in Europe and Russia for hundreds of years, and often rationalized by manufactured excuses (such as blood libels) and effected via torture. The expulsion and “ghetto-ization” of Jews was another means to rid communities of these unwanted Jews.


“The Street of Jews” in Old Strasbourg, France
(photo: First.One.Through)

This was – and continues to be – the nature of right-wing antisemitism: the hatred for the foreigner/ the Other. It continues to exist as people and governments do not internalized that their Jewish neighbors are indeed, their neighbors, and entitled to every protection and rights of citizenship like everyone else.

Left-Wing Antisemitism

Left-wing antisemitism is a newer phenomenon. As part of the liberal camp, the alt-left began with a broad humanistic view of the world. People of all races and religions were welcomed and embraced. Humankind bound all of us together. It was a world vision encapsulated in John Lennon’s song “Imagine,” in which divisions and borders – literal and figurative – ceased to exist. The common collective would live in global harmony.

Such a vision would naturally lead one to conclude that antisemitism is antithetical to such construct. A “brotherhood of man” cannot hate anyone. But time has proven the premise untrue.

The far left-wing of the liberal camp believes that everyone must adhere to their philosophy. ALL national borders, ALL religions, ALL differences based on money or class must be eradicated. Society must be re-imagined and flattened. Man-made artificial differences must be stripped away, so we can embrace our God-given differences such as race and gender. The far left has a quest and insistence on an imagined universal natural order and the shunning of any particular human order.

And so begets left-wing antisemitism.

  • While right-wing anti-Semites hate Jews for not believing in Jesus, the left-wing anti-Semites hate Jews for believing in religion.
  • While right-wing anti-Semites will pass laws banning circumcision and ritual slaughter of animals to get rid of Jews, the left-wing will implement the same policies out of secular, humanistic concerns.
  • While right-wing anti-Semites don’t want Jews to live in their country, the left-wing anti-Semites don’t want Jews to have a country (Israel).
  • While right-wing anti-Semites will actively murder Jews, the left-wing anti-Semites refuse to protect Jews (read article about how left-wing gay activists fight against providing police protection for Jewish day schools).

The alt-left dislikes Jews for holding on to their particular identity and hates Zionists for holding on to their particular history and heritage. Only a Jew that embraces the universal and sheds the particular (like non-Orthodox Jewish liberals) have a place in their left-wing fringe world.

The Silent Majority?

Today, Jews are caught between two growing and angry mobs on the extremes. They know the history of what the right-wing will do if it obtains power, and are intelligent enough to see the how the left-wing will strip their identities completely.

When liberals attacked President Trump for saying that there were good people on both sides of the Charlottesville, VA neo-Nazi march and protest in August 2017, they were correct in remonstrating him that there is no good in people who shout “Jews will not replace us.” But the alt-left was wrong in thinking that using violence as appropriate. Jews seek a peaceful place to pursue life, liberty and happiness. They do not want any violence and will not embrace the vision of either the alt-right or alt-left. One side vilifying the other wins no Jewish converts; Jews are wary of both extremist sides.

How can people reverse the trend and bring people back to the silent – and peaceful – middle? What can stop the Democratic Party from being hijacked by liberals who are becoming more and more extremist? How can the Republican Party – already shrinking – stop from sliding to the alt-right?

There are a number of ideas which have bandied about beyond the scope of this article, which include changing the electoral primary system which tends to feed the extremist base, to firmly establishing and protecting laws to protect individual liberties.

In the day-to-day, it is challenging to live as an open and proud Jew and Zionist in much of the world, for fear of being attacked by both the far-right and the far-left. For people who care about antisemitism, fight the extremists on BOTH sides. Never vote for fringe candidates and do not give them forums.

And do not follow the footsteps of either the alt-left or alt-right: Respect every particular and shun the enforced universal.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Your Father’s Anti-Semitism

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

When Hate Returns

Unity – not Uniformity – in the Pro-Israel Tent

The Happy and Smug Bigots of Denmark

The Non-Orthodox Jewish Denominations Fight Israel

Related First.One.Through video:

1001 Years of Expulsions (Schindler’s List)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

When Only Republicans Trust the Police

I grew up in suburbia.

I was taught from the earliest age that the police were our community’s brave protectors. In case of danger, they were to be called in an instant.

On hot summer days, my mother would send me out with cans of soda for the policemen that sat in their cars in the neighborhood (the old larger cans that would actually quench one’s thirst; not the miniature cans of today that just wet the lips). It was a small token of appreciation for being out in a hot day for us. We appreciated our guardians.

And I never thought any differently until years later.

For college, I moved just a few miles – but an ideological continent away – to the big city. I remained there after I graduated and started work. A short time later, I was called for my first jury duty.

On my first day, I was ushered with a pool of jurists into a large room by a manager of the court who gave us a short run-down of the case in question: a robbery-and-assault which was witnessed by a police officer. It basically came down to a he-said/ he-said assessment of who was telling the truth. The judge asked if anyone had any reason why they could not be impartial in the case.

I raised my hand.

I explained that all things being equal, I was inclined to believe the police officer and give greater weight to his testimony. When the judge asked why I would be partial to the police, I explained my upbringing of always trusting police officers.

The pool of jurists burst out laughing.

The judge went nuts.

She lashed out that my explanation was ridiculous and worthy of a child. She asked whether I was just looking for a quick exit to my corporate job. Hundreds of eyes from the multi-ethnic city jurists bored into my pale white skin.

But I didn’t blush of embarrassment; I shrunk in disbelief. Was I still in America?

Now, decades later, I often think about that day.

  • I think about it when I read articles about “white privilege.” Do non-Whites engage in society differently than I do?
  • I recall it when I read of unarmed Blacks being shot by police. Is race a dividing line in dealing with police?
  • I consider the gap between the red counties and blue counties across the country every election cycle, particularly in 2016. Is there a genuine difference between the experiences of people in large cities versus the rest of America?


2016 Presidential Election Map by County (red=Republican; blue=Democrat)
Source: BrilliantMaps

I am aware that the U.S. has become more divided regarding politics. But where is the fault line when it comes to government protection? Is America divided by race, by a rural-urban divide, by liberal-versus-conservative, old-versus-young, married-versus-single as it relates to something as basic as the police?

Our Common Defense

The preamble of the U.S. Constitution outlines the principle roles of our government:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”

In taking apart the opening clause, one can see how liberals and conservatives view the role(s) of government in starkly different terms:

  • form a more perfect union,” related to the establishment of the country in binding the colonies into a single entity. It may be poetic to consider 300+ million people married to each other today, but the union relates to our common citizenship.
  • establish justice,” has a very different meaning to progressives that seek to “establish justice” by flattening society and providing promotions to those falling behind, and conservatives that seek to uphold the rule of law;
  • insure domestic tranquility,” is a broad phrase and could cover freedom of speech (either protecting or curtailing) and religion, strengthening the economy, or preserving peace;
  • provide for the common defence,” can only be read one way, but may be perceived differently as reviewed here;
  • promote general welfare,” to liberals means freebies for individuals like free schools and free healthcare, while for conservatives it means governmental projects for society like highways, hospitals and parks;
  • and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” means the establishment of the rule of law, including the ability to prosecute such laws. Liberals could read “liberty to ourselves” as covering such rights as abortion for nine months of pregnancy, while conservatives could read “our posterity” to specifically limit abortion which undermines the unborn.

While various roles of our government can be interpreted very differently by liberals and conservatives, there is no misreading the role of “common defence,” to protect our borders, land and citizens from foreign actors with our armed forces. There is no question that each domestic goal can only be secured through a local police force.

But there is a swath of America that views the nation’s police and military with distrust.

Urban-versus-Rural

Based on my experience at jury duty, I thought the cynicism for our officers came from people in the cities. But the Cato Institute did work on the subject and concluded:

“People who live in densely populated areas are more likely to come into contact with officers. City centers also are more likely to have higher crime rates, which may increase the likelihood one has an encounter with law enforcement. However, actual differences in favorability toward the police by community type are rather small. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of individuals living in the suburbs have a favorable view of the police, as do 60% of those living in cities and 61% residing in rural areas.”

The fault line isn’t population density.

Race

The nation’s local and national protective forces have been increasing the number of minorities for the past few decades.

As of 2015, minorities made up 40% of the active military, up from just 25% in 1990. The percentage of minorities in local police forces doubled between 1987 and 2013, with Latinos making up the largest jump (just as they did in the US military).

But despite the increase of Blacks and Latinos in the police and military, Blacks continued to view the armed forces with distrust at the same levels as the 1970’s according to the Cato Institute. From 1970 to 2016, the percent of Whites with a favorable view of police was relatively constant, going from 67% to 68%. Over the same time, the percent of Blacks viewing police favorably dropped from 43% to 40%.

Blacks were skeptical of law enforcement regardless of income level, whereas Whites and Hispanics grew more comfortable with police as their incomes grew. Further, Black people were distrustful of police at almost the same levels whether they were Democrats, Independents or Republicans. Not so for Whites and Hispanics, whose positive opinions grew as their politics moved rightward.

Democrat-versus-Republican

Just as Black people were unlikely to change their feelings about law enforcement regardless of their income, party affiliation or increase in the number of Black people on police forces, Democrats – and liberals in particular – also barely change their distrust of the police. Whether the Democrats were White, Black or Hispanic and regardless of income level, they were wary of the police. However, Independents, Libertarians and Republicans all saw movement towards greater faith in the police as incomes grew in both the Hispanic and White communities.

Democrats that are White, Latino or Black all view the criminal justice system as unfair to minorities, with only 26%, 17% and 13%, thinking that the system was fair, respectively. The number jumped dramatically for Republicans that are White and Hispanic, but not for Blacks, with 67%, 45% and 15% stating that the system was fair, respectively.

Age

Older people are much more likely to have a favorable attitude towards police. People 65 and older had an 82% positive scoring for the police, higher than any group. The favorability scoring dropped to 70%, 54% and 53% for ages 45-64, 30-44 and 18-29, respectively.

Young Liberals and Blacks Distrust Police

The Cato Institute attempted to develop some underlying reasons behind the persistent negative feelings that Blacks and Liberals have for police.

One theory relayed to a “Respect for Authority (RAI) Index.” It found that Conservatives scored much higher (44%) than Liberals (16%). People that scored high on respecting authority were more likely to grant police latitude in their criminal prosecution. Young people are more likely to push against all forms of authority, including police, while Black people feel that the system has been set against them for generations.

Another poll examined the asymmetry of protecting the innocent versus punishing criminals. Liberals were much more likely to let more criminals run free if it meant avoiding incarcerating innocent people. Conservatives were more likely to pursue more arrests, even if it meant that innocent people would be caught up in the net. Not surprisingly, such attitudes correlate to Conservatives favoring a strong police presence, while Liberals favored a weaker force.

Black Lives Matter –
A Liberal and Black Coalition Against Police

A core principle of the local and national government is the protection of its citizens, and Liberals and Blacks believe that the government is failing in that regard. Liberals prefer empathy to order, and assistance to prosecution. Police sit on the wrong side of that equation for all Liberals, regardless of race, age or income.

Black people are still suspicious of the police, despite the large increase in their numbers in law enforcement and eight years of a Black president. They believe the anti-Black bias is deep and systemic.

These two groups coalesced into the Black Lives Matter movement a few years ago.

As stated on the BLM website:

“Black Lives Matter began as a call to action in response to state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.

Enraged by the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of his killer, George Zimmerman, and inspired by the 31-day takeover of the Florida State Capitol by POWER U and the Dream Defenders, we took to the streets. A year later, we set out together on the Black Lives Matter Freedom Ride to Ferguson, in search of justice for Mike Brown and all of those who have been torn apart by state-sanctioned violence and anti-Black racism. Forever changed, we returned home and began building the infrastructure for the Black Lives Matter Global Network, which, even in its infancy, has become a political home for many.”

Liberals attached themselves to the movement and added LGBTQ, environmental matters, minimum wage and a host of other issues into a movement that was primarily concerned with perceived police brutality against Blacks. The intersectionality of rage against the police was natural for the Liberals anyway.

Where Do We Go From Here

The polarization in the United States regarding a range of issues including unions, abortion and minimum wage all pale relative to the divide that exists in the perception of law enforcement, which is a core tenet of our government. Our society cannot thrive with only “red” cops (Republican-loved police), nor can it survive the anarchy proposed by Liberals. Increasing the number of minorities on police forces has yielded no change in attitude, nor has increased wealth.

Therefore, new approaches should be considered:

  • Elevate Hispanics. The Hispanic community has been joining both police forces and the national armed forces in great numbers. Their admiration for law enforcement has grown significantly. Society should reward both efforts by continuing to hire and promote the talented Hispanic officers, including to prominent positions.
  • Positive Police in Schools. Do not let the Black Lives Matter run the agenda in schools teaching young people to hate the police, and do not only have police officers in school when investigating a crime. Have officers talk to students and get to know them in a positive class and hallway format. Visit the local precinct and celebrate holidays together with police, possibly side-by-side in homeless shelters (versus just going to shelters without the police).
  • Dial back “authority.” If Liberals and Blacks are sensitive about authority, then police should consider selectively managing such authority, such as being more selective in “stop-and-frisk”programs.

America’s police and military are for all citizens and should be appreciated and trusted by everyone. If people are not learning to respect and appreciate our protective forces in their homes, we must do out utmost to promote such message in schools and society at-large.


Related First.One.Through articles:

In The Margins

Red, White and Blue: The Marrieds, the Majority and the Minorities of the USA

I Love 5-to-4

There’s No White Privilege for Prostitutes in Minnesota

Fact Check Your Assumptions on American Racism

Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts is the Most Racist State in the Country

American Hate: The Right Targets Foreigners, The Left Targets Americans

Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

America’s Closed Doors

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

The Right Stuff, Then and Now

Related First.One.Through video:

Immigration to America (Music by Neil Diamond)

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through Israel Analysis

Fake Definitions: Pluralism and Progressive / Liberalism

It has long been a favorite marketing ploy to brand oneself in a manner that can give the maximum level of appeal. For example, those people in favor of abortion rights call themselves “pro-choice” rather than “pro-abortion,” to move the conversation from the killing of a fetus to one about a woman’s right to choose. It is brilliant and effective.

Over the past decade, the far-left liberal wing of the Democratic party began to make strides in taking over the party in both numbers and policy. As part of their hijacking the party leftward, they opted to re-brand themselves and their policies as “progressive” and “forward-leaning,” rather than “liberal.” The marketing maneuver was meant to demonstrate a path towards the future. In doing so, the liberals weren’t merely re-branding themselves, but trying to recast “conservatives” as older and backwards-thinking “deplorables,” to quote Hillary Clinton.

The marketing continues to be retooled, post the Democrats loss in the 2016 presidential election. The Democrats are giving pause as to whether to continue its leftward shift and push the likes of socialists like Bernie Sanders, or Elizabeth Warren and Keith Ellison. Would emphasizing the perception of being a bunch of “coastal liberal latte-sipping politically-correct out-of-touch folks,” as Barack Obama said be a good strategy, or should the party pivot itself as caring about ALL people and opinions?

Enter the next new thing for liberals: “pluralism.” It suggests a very wide tent open to all people and opinions – including conservatives.

But it ain’t. It’s just more liberal policies and people advancing a new tagline to try to win an election.

To be fair, it’s not just liberal politicians trying to win an election. It’s about all liberals who are trying to come to terms with their own biases. They still hate the people who “cling to guns and religion,” as Obama described, but by self-describing themselves as in favor of “pluralism,” they feel that they have pierced their liberal echo chamber.

Of course, it’s a sham, and one that left-leaning Jewish groups are embracing wholeheartedly.

Jewish Pluralism

Consider the Jewish organization the Shalom Hartman Institute. It proudly identifies itself as cross-denominational and calls for “radical pluralism.” Does it truly invite all people and opinions? Well, the group is run by a bunch of elite Ashkenazi intellectuals. Do the Israeli or American chapters have Haredis on its leadership team – the fastest growing group in Israel? No. Does it have a large number of Mizrachi Jews on its staff, representing the majority of Jews in Israel? No. How about any of the over 100,000 black Ethiopian Jews that have come to the country over the past few decades. Nope.

There are more Muslims on staff than all three of those Jewish groups combined.

But the left-leaning organization is working with left-leaning media outlets to advance the notion that it is pluralistic.

Consider the March 16, 2018 article in a major New York Jewish paper, The Jewish Week, which ran an article called “Across the Great Divide.” It posited the question: “Can Yehuda Kurtzer’s [president of the Shalom Hartman Institute North America] doctrine of pluralism heal the divides in the Jewish community?”

The Hartman Institute is only pluralistic in the sense that it’s members come from different denominations of Judaism including Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Open Orthodox, but it’s politics are liberal.

Consider one of its recent topics on “Jewish Canon and Male Privilege.” Is this really a pluralistic organization that is open to a wide range of views, or is it simply seeking to bring in more conservative people to listen to the liberal talking points? Will the SHI host a discussion about “The Bible’s Prohibition of Homosexual Relations,” or “Why are Muslims Much More anti-Semitic than Other Religions Today?” I highly doubt it.

So it goes in the world with the word “pluralism.” The word is being co-opted by liberals and being stripped of its true meaning.

And it is a shame. Because the world could really use some genuine dialogue.


Related First.One.Through articles:

American Hate: The Right Targets Foreigners, The Left Targets Americans

A Country Divided

There are Standards for Unity

Older White Men are the Most Politically Balanced Demographic By Far

The Non-Orthodox Jewish Denominations Fight Israel

The Democratic Party is Tacking to the Far Left-Wing Anti-Semitic Fringe

J Street is a Partisan Left-Wing Group, NOT an Alternative to AIPAC

The Reform Movement’s Rick Jacobs Has no Understanding of Tolerance

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis